This is a Dengist community in favor of Bashar al-Assad with no information that can lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton, our fellow liberal and queen. This community is not ironic. We are Marxists-Leninists.
This community is for posts about Marxism and geopolitics (including shitposts to some extent). Serious posts can be posted here or in /c/GenZhou. Reactionary or ultra-leftist cringe posts belong in /c/shitreactionariessay or /c/shitultrassay respectively.
We have a Matrix homeserver and a Matrix space. See this thread for more information. If you believe the server may be down, check the status on status.elara.ws.
Rules:
Hello and welcome to the Weekly discussion thread, the most honored tradition of our group. Please take a hammer from the free hammer bucket, but just take one, we have to make sure they go around.
• Matrix homeserver and space
◦ Theory discussion group now on Lemmygrad
• Find theory on ProleWiki, marxists.org, Anna's Archive, libgen
Oh and if you have money to spare, consider supporting Lemmy development
I fucking hate the trolley problem.
The more I think about it, the more obvious it's flaws become and the more I hate the
using it as a metaphor for real life problems.
The peoples who like to pose the trolley problem always complain about "trolls" proposing "loopholes" to opt out of the 2 options explicitly offered by setting. But guess what? The "trolls" are objectively correct!!
Since the problem is about minimizing the number of deaths, then blocking the rails with a tree, a car or whatever to force the trolley to stop, or contacting the conductor of the trolley or someone else with control over the trolley to make it stop, or any other such "loophole" is better than either default solutions since it results in 0 deaths instead of 1 or 5.
And whether the trolley problem folks like it or not, the fact is that there is nothing in the setting to explain why we wouldn't be able to do one of these "loopholes". The only way the trolley problem folks can force us back to the dilemma is to either arbitrarily forbid any loophole or come up with an ad-hoc explanation for each loophole to explain why we wouldn't be able to do it. But both of these ways are exactly what's wrong with the trolley problem and how it's used in arguments.
The first way is literally "you aren't allowed options that don't help my point because I said so". Do I even need to say what the problem is here?
The second way is adding more and more ad-hoc elements to the setting to force the 2 options, making the trolley problem even more oddly specific, ad-hoc and removed from reality than it already is with the basic setting, making it even less applicable to real life than it was.
I especially hate how some peoples try to use it as an argument to impose a false dilemma. The liberal tantrum about peoples who refused to obey blue MAGA's order of voting blue no matter who had no shortage of smug libs trying to impose us the false dilemma of "it's either Biden or Trump, no third option exist" on us.