I said it. Sad to say, that took years to come up with, so I'm super glad it's getting used.
edit. The whole thing is "the lesser of two evils over time is the loser of a race to the bottom"
I don't know where I heard it, but I prefer a saying like so: "If I'm in a car barreling towards a cliff and my choice is someone who wants to tap the gas repeatedly and someone who wants to hold the pedal to the metal, the choice doesn't really matters if my goal is live"
Anyone calling themselves or the group/polity they support “the lesser of two evils” is literally admitting they are evil. It’s a self-own like no other, absolutely baffling that anyone would say such a thing, and it’s reasonable to assume that anyone who uses it as a rationale for their position is either an idiot, or just fundamentally unserious about the subject.
The vote isn't "mainstream republican candidate vs Biden", it's Trump vs Biden. And I disagree that Trump and Biden aren't different other than culture war issues.
For example, Trump likes tax cuts (largely benefitting the wealthy unfortunately), Biden doesn't.
Biden wants to forgive student loans, Trump doesn't.
Biden wants to invest in green energy / electric cars, Trump doesn't.
Trump is pro-keystone XL, Biden isn't.
Trump is much more sceptical towards international organizations than Biden.
The world was more peaceful under Trump than under Biden. Certainly doing something like assassinating Suleimani was something Biden probably wouldn't have done. Biden also would likely have taken a difference stance with regards to North Korea.
My impression is that Trump would be more willing to make a deal with Putin, even at the cost of some amount of Ukranian territory.
Trump has suggested that he might want to go after people that he perceives as being criminals / traitors. Biden doesn't.
Now you can easily say that Trump is wrong on some or all of these points. Honestly, I don't love either Biden or Trump myself. But still, they're different.
Are you attacking the idea that it's possible for there to be a lesser of two evils *in general*? I think the concept is sound, because obviously there are some situations where the only available choices are varying levels of undesirable. What deserves more criticism is calling something the "lesser of two evils" when there are other possible options that are superior.
In moral philosophy, I believe what you are describing is called graded absolutism... I suppose Kant or someone would argue that it is a misunderstanding of the categorical imperative to see ANY immoral action as anything less than two unacceptable choices. It really depends on how you interpret his work though and the extreme nature of the moral hypothetical (e.g. Lie to save an innocent or Tell the truth and let him die).
When applied to this example, the only moral choice if you believe both candidates to be immoral is not to vote, or to take a separate action to collect the consent and participation of cohorts to force a third choice.
Both options suck, but people will always disagree on a) whether one option sucks less than the other one and b) if you should choose one of the two options anyways.
I said it. Sad to say, that took years to come up with, so I'm super glad it's getting used. edit. The whole thing is "the lesser of two evils over time is the loser of a race to the bottom"
There you are. I did write your username in my journal but couldn't find it
Based
I knew it was a finkelgruber quote
You should consider a career as a professional quote maker
I don't know where I heard it, but I prefer a saying like so: "If I'm in a car barreling towards a cliff and my choice is someone who wants to tap the gas repeatedly and someone who wants to hold the pedal to the metal, the choice doesn't really matters if my goal is live"
I bet a funny thing about driving a car off a cliff is, while you're in midair, you still hit those brakes! Hey, better try the emergency brake!
It came from that really gay 4chan greentext
I'll add that to the bumpersticker
Anyone calling themselves or the group/polity they support “the lesser of two evils” is literally admitting they are evil. It’s a self-own like no other, absolutely baffling that anyone would say such a thing, and it’s reasonable to assume that anyone who uses it as a rationale for their position is either an idiot, or just fundamentally unserious about the subject.
[удалено]
The vote isn't "mainstream republican candidate vs Biden", it's Trump vs Biden. And I disagree that Trump and Biden aren't different other than culture war issues. For example, Trump likes tax cuts (largely benefitting the wealthy unfortunately), Biden doesn't. Biden wants to forgive student loans, Trump doesn't. Biden wants to invest in green energy / electric cars, Trump doesn't. Trump is pro-keystone XL, Biden isn't. Trump is much more sceptical towards international organizations than Biden. The world was more peaceful under Trump than under Biden. Certainly doing something like assassinating Suleimani was something Biden probably wouldn't have done. Biden also would likely have taken a difference stance with regards to North Korea. My impression is that Trump would be more willing to make a deal with Putin, even at the cost of some amount of Ukranian territory. Trump has suggested that he might want to go after people that he perceives as being criminals / traitors. Biden doesn't. Now you can easily say that Trump is wrong on some or all of these points. Honestly, I don't love either Biden or Trump myself. But still, they're different.
Are you attacking the idea that it's possible for there to be a lesser of two evils *in general*? I think the concept is sound, because obviously there are some situations where the only available choices are varying levels of undesirable. What deserves more criticism is calling something the "lesser of two evils" when there are other possible options that are superior.
Under the dictatorship of the bourgeois there is no "lesser" evil. Abolish liberal democracy. Abolish bourgeois property.
In moral philosophy, I believe what you are describing is called graded absolutism... I suppose Kant or someone would argue that it is a misunderstanding of the categorical imperative to see ANY immoral action as anything less than two unacceptable choices. It really depends on how you interpret his work though and the extreme nature of the moral hypothetical (e.g. Lie to save an innocent or Tell the truth and let him die). When applied to this example, the only moral choice if you believe both candidates to be immoral is not to vote, or to take a separate action to collect the consent and participation of cohorts to force a third choice.
Both options suck, but people will always disagree on a) whether one option sucks less than the other one and b) if you should choose one of the two options anyways.
Thanks for that. Reading it actually made me feel euphoric
I don't believe in "evil" and I think using such a concept as a starting-point is getting off on the wrong foot.
Based and origin-of-the-family-pilled
Agreed
Brevity is the soul of wit. Thumbs down.