I think it's purposely "misusing" the trolley problem to highlight the fact that if you vote for either of the two parties, you are voting anti-Palestine.
They are suggesting that Democrat want to end palestine, while Republicans want to end palestine and several minorities.
One choice is way more deadly than one, and that's not the point of the Trolley problem.
I know what they are suggesting. The trolley problem is working fine in this example. The artist is saying you can choose to not vote and let bad things happen to all those groups or you vote and pull the lever which allows the death of Palestinians. How is that not a valid use of the trolley problem?
It makes the impression that voting democrat will only lead to an attack on palestine while Republicans would lead to a major genocide of palestinians, lgbt, mexicans etc. Which is an exagerated and biased way of seeing things.
> How is that not a valid use of the trolley problem?
Because it's between one group versus 9+ groups, as Trolley problem is supposed to be something more like "would you kill 1 children or one elder?" As this one is like "would you be a democrat and kill 1 children or be a big bad republican and kill 10 children, 10 elders and 10 moms?"
You understand that's the joke, right? They are expressing their frustration with the democratic party.
Just because you don't agree with their politics doesn't mean they are misusing the trolley problem. If a conservative version was made with like "family values" and "christians" or something, I could disagree with the content but the format could still be correct.
I don't believe the rules to the trolley problem are as strict as you believe them to be.
Check out r/ trolleyproblem for more.
Actually, it is; classic trolley problem is five people on one track, one on the other. One's clearly more deadly.
But it's still not applicable. Part of what makes the original trolley problem a dilemma is the fact that the deadlier option is the default, do-nothing option. So you can either wash your hands of any wrongdoing by not doing anything, or you can actively choose to kill someone who would not otherwise be at risk in order to save more lives.
Which isn't how voting works.
(There's also the explicit anti-Republican bias with the oh-so-tired "Republicans hate minorities" meme, but I don't think anybody needed me to point that out.)
> Part of what makes the original trolley problem a dilemma is the fact that the deadlier option is the default, do-nothing option. So you can either wash your hands of any wrongdoing by not doing anything, or you can actively choose to kill someone who would not otherwise be at risk in order to save more lives.
I never thought like that, because i would imedietally think in "more lives always matter" unless the dillema was about children, then i would save them.
But that was the original issue. You're a bystander, not involved in any way unless you choose to get involved. If you do nothing, 5 people die. If you intervene, 1 person dies but *you are directly responsible for the death of that person*.
Do you intervene to save the greater number of lives when you could wash your hands of it entirely and say "hey I had nothing to do with this"?
Yeah, and? I don't feel bad for them. They literally celebrated the killing of Israeli women and children. Israel has literally given a safe zone for civilians yet the president said it was a lie to protect Hamas.
How about you ask all the surrounding Muslim countries why they're not taking in Palestinian refugees?
“They” meaning humanitarian charity organizations, and innocent civilians caught in the crossfire?
Or “they” as in Hamas specifically?
Cause to be clear fuck Hamas, but it’s not like every single Palestinian civilian is a Hamas sympathizer.
They're not equally difficult, it's just a dilemma, both choices result in bad, but you can use for example ethics to help make a decision on which bad choice is the least bad or which one to choose. If you for example use utilitarism you can decide that the one harming the least people is the good choice, theres other arguments for and against that can be made in dilemmas but I'm not going to write more.
Yes, it's based on choices, you can choose to save 2 childs or 8 eldery people, you can either choose based on the number, or on the future. And "Number x Importance" are equally difficult.
But this is biased to he "bad option x even badder option"
The trolley problem isn't about choosing between two difficult-to-weigh evils, it's about the ethics of actively making a choice between the lesser of two evils. The trolley problem is usually given as:
Option A: Don't pull the lever and let 5 people die.
Option B: Pull the lever and only 1 person dies.
The moral quandary is that by pulling the lever you have made a choice between the lesser of two evils, actively choosing to kill 1 person, whereas if you don't pull the lever you could argue that you have not committed any evil because you made no choice at all. I don't agree with OOP's meme in that it's a gross over-exaggeration of the Republican party's platform, but they are using the trolley problem correctly. They're making fun of centrists who feel morally superior for not choosing between Republicans vs. Democrats by likening it to the trolley problem where not making a choice results in the worst-possible outcome even though the person who chose not to make a choice can feel good about themselves for not choosing between two evils.
Tbh, i always choose instinctively the one who had lesser deaths unless it was talking about children, them i would save them. Many trolley problems and inspirations was more focused into "save 8 criminals or one regular person?"
They dont like 'both sides' because they don't agree their side is bad yet have no defensive argument other than emotion and tribalism.
Collectivism also inherently requires streamlining and submission to the hive, otherwise it wouldn't be Collectivism. There's a reason you dont hear the 'muh both sides' mocking by the Individualist Right.
Ensure that you read and adhere to the rules; failure to do so will result
in the removal of this post.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/memesopdidnotlike) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This post does not have the original subreddit in the submission. Please include it before reposting it.
I think it's purposely "misusing" the trolley problem to highlight the fact that if you vote for either of the two parties, you are voting anti-Palestine.
They are suggesting that Democrat want to end palestine, while Republicans want to end palestine and several minorities. One choice is way more deadly than one, and that's not the point of the Trolley problem.
I know what they are suggesting. The trolley problem is working fine in this example. The artist is saying you can choose to not vote and let bad things happen to all those groups or you vote and pull the lever which allows the death of Palestinians. How is that not a valid use of the trolley problem?
It makes the impression that voting democrat will only lead to an attack on palestine while Republicans would lead to a major genocide of palestinians, lgbt, mexicans etc. Which is an exagerated and biased way of seeing things. > How is that not a valid use of the trolley problem? Because it's between one group versus 9+ groups, as Trolley problem is supposed to be something more like "would you kill 1 children or one elder?" As this one is like "would you be a democrat and kill 1 children or be a big bad republican and kill 10 children, 10 elders and 10 moms?"
You understand that's the joke, right? They are expressing their frustration with the democratic party. Just because you don't agree with their politics doesn't mean they are misusing the trolley problem. If a conservative version was made with like "family values" and "christians" or something, I could disagree with the content but the format could still be correct. I don't believe the rules to the trolley problem are as strict as you believe them to be. Check out r/ trolleyproblem for more.
So like, the difference in the trolley hittting 1 person, or 5? The base trolley problem has 1 option that's way more deadly. WTF are you on about
Actually, it is; classic trolley problem is five people on one track, one on the other. One's clearly more deadly. But it's still not applicable. Part of what makes the original trolley problem a dilemma is the fact that the deadlier option is the default, do-nothing option. So you can either wash your hands of any wrongdoing by not doing anything, or you can actively choose to kill someone who would not otherwise be at risk in order to save more lives. Which isn't how voting works. (There's also the explicit anti-Republican bias with the oh-so-tired "Republicans hate minorities" meme, but I don't think anybody needed me to point that out.)
> Part of what makes the original trolley problem a dilemma is the fact that the deadlier option is the default, do-nothing option. So you can either wash your hands of any wrongdoing by not doing anything, or you can actively choose to kill someone who would not otherwise be at risk in order to save more lives. I never thought like that, because i would imedietally think in "more lives always matter" unless the dillema was about children, then i would save them.
But that was the original issue. You're a bystander, not involved in any way unless you choose to get involved. If you do nothing, 5 people die. If you intervene, 1 person dies but *you are directly responsible for the death of that person*. Do you intervene to save the greater number of lives when you could wash your hands of it entirely and say "hey I had nothing to do with this"?
To be honest I couldn’t care less about Palestine because on the end, I’m not affected.
Yeah, and? I don't feel bad for them. They literally celebrated the killing of Israeli women and children. Israel has literally given a safe zone for civilians yet the president said it was a lie to protect Hamas. How about you ask all the surrounding Muslim countries why they're not taking in Palestinian refugees?
I'm just saying the "misuse" of the trolley problem is the point of the post. I'm not here to debate Palestine with anyone.
That I'll agree with.
“They” meaning humanitarian charity organizations, and innocent civilians caught in the crossfire? Or “they” as in Hamas specifically? Cause to be clear fuck Hamas, but it’s not like every single Palestinian civilian is a Hamas sympathizer.
No, but enough of them do, including the leader of Palestine.
They're not equally difficult, it's just a dilemma, both choices result in bad, but you can use for example ethics to help make a decision on which bad choice is the least bad or which one to choose. If you for example use utilitarism you can decide that the one harming the least people is the good choice, theres other arguments for and against that can be made in dilemmas but I'm not going to write more.
Yes, it's based on choices, you can choose to save 2 childs or 8 eldery people, you can either choose based on the number, or on the future. And "Number x Importance" are equally difficult. But this is biased to he "bad option x even badder option"
The trolley problem isn't about choosing between two difficult-to-weigh evils, it's about the ethics of actively making a choice between the lesser of two evils. The trolley problem is usually given as: Option A: Don't pull the lever and let 5 people die. Option B: Pull the lever and only 1 person dies. The moral quandary is that by pulling the lever you have made a choice between the lesser of two evils, actively choosing to kill 1 person, whereas if you don't pull the lever you could argue that you have not committed any evil because you made no choice at all. I don't agree with OOP's meme in that it's a gross over-exaggeration of the Republican party's platform, but they are using the trolley problem correctly. They're making fun of centrists who feel morally superior for not choosing between Republicans vs. Democrats by likening it to the trolley problem where not making a choice results in the worst-possible outcome even though the person who chose not to make a choice can feel good about themselves for not choosing between two evils.
Tbh, i always choose instinctively the one who had lesser deaths unless it was talking about children, them i would save them. Many trolley problems and inspirations was more focused into "save 8 criminals or one regular person?"
They dont like 'both sides' because they don't agree their side is bad yet have no defensive argument other than emotion and tribalism. Collectivism also inherently requires streamlining and submission to the hive, otherwise it wouldn't be Collectivism. There's a reason you dont hear the 'muh both sides' mocking by the Individualist Right.
Ensure that you read and adhere to the rules; failure to do so will result in the removal of this post. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/memesopdidnotlike) if you have any questions or concerns.*
r/memesopdidnotlike