politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. 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.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
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.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Wow. You're such a humanitarian. "It's okay if just as many people die as they always do if change happens eventually" is just disgusting and I have no idea why you think otherwise.
Because saying that proves your claim that people dying of treatable conditions does not bother you.
You are completely missing my point. Firstly, just because I consider something acceptable doesn't mean I think that it's okay. It's more that If action or inaction on a problem causes the same amount of suffering and death, then I believe that action with the hope of a good resolution is the better course.
Let me phrase it in terms of the trolley problem. Just because I would calculate to take the least shitty course of action does not mean I'm uncaring of the outcome. I would simply be forced to play the hand that I'm dealt. And like I said, the problem of US healthcare is not mine to fix. So I can only speculate on what I might do without having to face the potential reality of action.
So what about you? Would you choose action causing harm to stop it later, or inaction and do nothing to mitigate the present harm?
There's no course of action available in which people won't suffer and die. In an ideal world that would not be so, but we must face reality however shit it may be.
Sure sounds like you consider it acceptable to me, especially since you admit it won't affect you at all:
So basically this entire time you've been expecting other people to make sacrifices that you won't have to make. Which is pretty shitty.
I'm not expecting anything, I'm talking entirely theoretically. I'm not asking anyone to do anything, I'm speculating on what I would do in that situation.
If I'm in a situation where I'm solving the trolley problem by equation, which track I'm on is not a factor. Or to put it as simple as I can. If I had to be one of those who die, it would not change my thoughts on what would be acceptable.
This entire time, you have been defending someone who says there should be a general strike where everyone walks off their job regardless if kids starve or are taken away from them for neglect and regardless of whether or not kids die.
And suddenly you aren't expecting anything?
Have you read anything the person you have been defending has written? Including the part where they say naming imaginary people as spies is dangerous?
Ah, I see where the miscommunication happened. Only my first response was a defence of them, and only as far as the comment you were responding to. Their opinions are theirs and mine are mine.
I don't think a general strike is a remotely plausible possibility, it simply requires more labour organisation and willingness endure hardship than what currently exists. Me going into hypotheticals and theoreticals is based on this. You're right that If it were somehow we're to happen, the suffering would be immense and I don't know of any remotely realistic goal that it could achieve that would justify it. There's a lot wrong with society but I don't see how bringinging it all to a stop would do much to help.
The main point I initially tried to make(but got very sidetracked from) is that just because someone is advocating for a course of action that causes harm in persuit of a goal, it doesn't mean they are ignorant or uncaring of the harm. But rather that they believe that the end justifies the means.
Sorry for the confusion.
That's fine. It happens.