Thank you, thank you, thank you. It feels better knowing that at least one other person around here gets it. I’ve been trying to explain this to people since the start of this whole thing and all I get is downvoted into oblivion for it.
On the other side is a bigger powerful, well-funded pro-Israel lobby (which the Palestinians don’t have) and a traditionally fairly cohesive and influential pro-Israel voting block.
The bolding is my own addition. I think this is the part people seem to refuse to understand. The pro-Israel side is many times larger than the pro-Palestine side. Even if he were to change positions the day that Israel bombed the first hospital, all that would mean is that we’d be seeing even larger pro-Israel protests instead of pro-Palestine ones, and politicians from both parties would be taking Biden to task for essentially abandoning one of our allies.
And I agree with your assessment that at this point, all he’s doing is pissing both sides off. But in reality, there was never a situation where he wasn’t going to piss off somebody. From the point of view of his attempts to get re-elected, he’s probably taking the least shitty option available to him. Whether or not any of us agree on if it’s the morally correct choice, I at least can acknowledge and understand that the other options available to him are all significantly worse and would only significantly increase Trump’s chances of winning, which is just worse for everybody regardless of which side of the issue you’re on.
Deontology is moral masturbation, a luxury reserved for those with little effect on the world. Responsible, conscious adults have to take into account the consequences of their choices. Politicians’ choices have consequences which are orders of magnitude more significant than a random person. The president of the United States, especially this president ahead of this election, has a vast number of complex consequences to consider in their moral calculus.
When political choices have moral consequences, and vice versa, you can’t draw a tidy line between the two considerations.
Thank you, thank you, thank you. It feels better knowing that at least one other person around here gets it. I’ve been trying to explain this to people since the start of this whole thing and all I get is downvoted into oblivion for it.
The bolding is my own addition. I think this is the part people seem to refuse to understand. The pro-Israel side is many times larger than the pro-Palestine side. Even if he were to change positions the day that Israel bombed the first hospital, all that would mean is that we’d be seeing even larger pro-Israel protests instead of pro-Palestine ones, and politicians from both parties would be taking Biden to task for essentially abandoning one of our allies.
And I agree with your assessment that at this point, all he’s doing is pissing both sides off. But in reality, there was never a situation where he wasn’t going to piss off somebody. From the point of view of his attempts to get re-elected, he’s probably taking the least shitty option available to him. Whether or not any of us agree on if it’s the morally correct choice, I at least can acknowledge and understand that the other options available to him are all significantly worse and would only significantly increase Trump’s chances of winning, which is just worse for everybody regardless of which side of the issue you’re on.
It’s not black and white politically. It’s clear as day morally. And he’s falling on that score
Deontology is moral masturbation, a luxury reserved for those with little effect on the world. Responsible, conscious adults have to take into account the consequences of their choices. Politicians’ choices have consequences which are orders of magnitude more significant than a random person. The president of the United States, especially this president ahead of this election, has a vast number of complex consequences to consider in their moral calculus.
When political choices have moral consequences, and vice versa, you can’t draw a tidy line between the two considerations.
It’s impressive making a post like that while accusing others of moral masturbation.
Did I? I described a practice as moral masturbation, I didn’t accuse anyone of anything.
You did. Unless that another hair you’d like to split. I’m done with this conversation.
This is an impressive contribution.