cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/8485777
Burn all US politicians
this post was submitted on 13 May 2026
232 points (81.7% liked)
Memes
55773 readers
802 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
from a deontologist's view, refusing to play along with a system that enables genocide is the only moral move. you don't need it to be effective. you need to not be complicit. that's the intention and goal that you seem to be miss understanding.
teleologists call that insane because they only care about outcomes. but that's exactly the problem -- their framework treats genocide as just another variable to optimize around instead of the human & ethical tragedy it is in irl and it's not a bug; it's the system working as designed.
so when people choose not to operate inside the american system's confines -- where genocide is a natural outcome -- they aren't being naive. they're rejecting that system entirely. they're acting like deontologists in a world that only rewards teleologists. that's not a misunderstanding. that's a refusal.
it's a refusal and the only sane response to a system that has genocide and ethnic-cleansing baked into its logic.
The failure in understanding here is that "refusing to play along" is STILL playing along. You are making a choice that you're ok with whatever the uneducated masses decide. This is like basic trolly problem shit. You are given two terrible choices, there is no option for a magical third choice. You can't get out of it by saying you just refuse to participate, because that's just choosing not to pull the lever.
The trolley problem itself is shit.
No it fucking isn't. Because the basic trolly problem doesn't have the trolly loop back around to the start every four years with increasingly large amounts of new people placed on the track each time. You got your fucking "lesser evil" win in 2020, and it led to the worst atrocities of our era.
You're not actually approaching this as a consequencalist, you're just looking at your own self interest and trying to work backwards to justify it.
you're conflating "refusing to play" with "choosing not to pull the lever." choosing not to pull the lever still accepts the framing. it still says "these are the only tracks, this is the only lever, so my only choice is yes or no."
actual refusal means rejecting the premise entirely. it means organizing outside the trolley and/or building a world where the trolley doesn't run in the first place.
you say there's no magical third choice. that's exactly what people said to the abolitionists and the suffragettes and to everyone else who ever refused a rigged game, but built a new one anyway.
so no, refusing to play isn't playing along. it's the first real move anyone makes when they stop believing the lever is the only tool in existence.
And when confronted by this truth, those who choose the lesser evil devolve into insults, knowing their argument holds no moral weight, as evidenced by the other replies to you.
this person and one other have replied to me; they're avoiding interacting with me. lol
Sure, whatever helps you sleep at night. I can't help it if you completely fail to understand Baby's First Moral Philosophy Question.
Most of us sleep just fine not supporting dog rape genocide fascists. You're the one trying to come up with all sorts of tortured arguments to justify yourself
Ah yes, the classic “I have no rebuttal, therefore I will insult you” response.
Maybe one day you'll be able to process Baby's Second Moral Philosphy Question
Maybe stop trying to emulate the moral intelligence of an infant
There's no lever you can pull as a third choice because the lever only operates inside the bounds of the "system" of the rail network. It's working as designed. So break the rails if it is an inevitability that people get tied to the tracks.
The system is just as immutable as the divine right of kings. Choosing to campaign on lever pulls within the system instead of focusing on systemic restructuring tells me a couple of things: 1) You aren't tied to both sides of the track. 2) You're fine with giving validity to a system that bakes genocide into itself because your comfort relies on someone being tied to the both tracks, and at the moment, that isn't you.
Refusing to pull the lever doesn't prevent you from working outside the bounds of the rail network. It might be worth considering that instead of the belief in slowly changing the democrats with slow constant pressure, the system is changing you to be more accepting of the unacceptable.
Oh, so you managed to destroy the tracks last election? No? Hmm, sounds like you did nothing then and the trolley continued down the path its currently on. A path that numerous people tried to tell you was worse than the other path. But it's ok! You chose to dismantle the system and operate outside of it!
Except you didn't do that. You had no ability to do that. Your actions are the exact same as someone who chose not to pull the lever, and the outcome is the exact same as if you chose not to pull the lever. To anyone observing, you are just as worthless as someone who didn't pull the lever. Because at the end of the day, there WAS a lever and you DIDN'T pull it.
I see you didn't even manage to get that lever pulled last election because genocide isn't very popular regardless of your cheerleading. Pulling the lever would've never stopped the genocide, but derailing the train would have. You didn't want genocide to end, you just wanted to go back to brunch.
You know, at least back when Lincoln was president, voters at least had a spine to do something about issues they were ethically against. They were willing to completely abandon the Whig party to back the new republican party (which killed the Whig party). This isn't a fundamental change to the system, but even still it is farther than you'd be willing to go to prevent genocide. Perhaps what leftists need is for people like you to be less chickenshit genocidal white supremacist sellouts who hem and haw about the correct way to do genocide to prevent as much blowback to yourselves as possible as you live in the luxury that has been paid in the blood of the global south.
Or maybe ask me which state my "lever" was in and realize how futile your argument is for the majority of states and the majority of the population. Even if we had universal popular vote to determine president, as you seem to assume, that doesn't remove the fact that the two choices were both supporters of genocide and the train deserves to be derailed and the track destroyed.
This point is totally useless without a way to derail the train. Not just a vague conceptual idea of what could theoretically derail the train, that's useless. Without an actual mechanism to realistically do so, sufficient buy-in to implement that mechanism, and sufficient organization to actually follow through on that implementation, this is a totally useless argument. The necessary mechanism, buy-in, and organization does not currently exist. If you lack the ability to detail the train, it doesn't matter how much better the world would be if the train was derailed. It's pure fantasy, and it gets in the way of actual realistic praxis.
The problem is that those organizations are being built as we speak, and so should redirect people to those organizations. That's realistic praxis. By pretending that these organizations will magically appear one day without needing to life a finger, you're absolving yourself of the responsibility to do so and are calling "realistic praxis" upholding a genocidal system.
Just because you can’t imagine getting off your ass and building a better world doesn’t mean that everyone else shares your love for learned incompetence and your defense of fascists.
It’s funny how libs always assume that moral objectors aren’t doing anything besides voting. Do you think we aren’t out organizing our communities so that eventually we will have the mechanism to destroy the train?
And how do you think that mechanism gets built if it doesn’t start with a refusal to get on the train in the first place?
And finally, if moral objectors are so impotent and meaningless, then why do you keep blaming us for your candidate’s loss?
They do think this because they think everyone is like them
I completely understand that intention and goal. But it's literally just virtue signaling. Teleology is concerned with securing the most favorable outcome, deontology only cares about preserving individual moral superiority. The teleologists obviously recognize the ethical tragedy, they're just more interested in trying to save as many people as they can than keeping their hands clean and pure.
Deontology is self-centered and immature. It's feels over reals. Who cares how many people suffer and die, at least you personally didn't participate.
Except that rejection accomplishes nothing. It does nothing to stop, or even slow, ongoing genocide. It's a the ethical equivalent of shutting your eyes and plugging your ears.
The situation isn't even really comparable to the trolley problem, because Gaza was on both tracks. By not pulling the lever, Gaza was not spared. All inaction accomplished was the suffering of all the other people on the straight track.
When a country makes torture, rape, and genocide a bipartisan policy, the most favourable outcome is whatever will collapse it the fastest. If you were actually sincere in your argument, you would have to vote for Trump.
But you're not sincere, you're just trying to justify exterminating hundreds of thousands of people for your own self interest.
you're proving my point here without realizing it.
the two tracks are an american framing. pull the lever or don't. vote for the lesser evil or don't. those are the only choices your system lets you consider.
but here's what you're missing: both tracks were laid by the same people fostering the genocide. the lever is a prop. "pulling it" doesn't stop the train; it just makes you feel like you did something.
and here's the part many won't touch: the same system you're defending as "pragmatic" has a body count outside your borders that dwarfs anything it saves inside them. a conservative estimate puts the number of people killed by us sanctions alone at 38 million over 50 years (and that's ignoring the genocides and ethnic cleansings). that's not a rounding error. that's more people than the population of canada. that's the cost of your "realism."
furthermore, consider the numbers most americans care about: how many americans has the system saved by being "pragmatic" inside the voting booth? because 38 million dead outside vs. dramatically less inside -- that's not a trade-off; that's a slaughter masked as strategy.
western teleologists have self groomed themselves into thinking pragmatism means picking between two options handed down by the ruling class. anything outside that frame gets called "virtue signaling" or "immature" because it threatens the real game: managing genocide, not ending it.
deontology isn't about clean hands. it's about refusal to legitimize a system where genocide is a natural outcome. and that refusal isn't inaction -- it's the foundation of any actual alternative. you can't build a track that doesn't lead to a better destination if you keep praising people for getting good at pulling the lever.
also the person who refuse isn't plugging their ears; they're saying the whole track-switching game is rigged so they're not going to cooperate. that's not self-centered. that's the only sane response to a system that made you believe the two tracks is the only world that exists.
No, I'm not. You're just trying to reframe reality in a deliberately deceitful way.
Stopping the train wasn't an option that any voter had the power to effect. Just because pulling the lever fails to solve one particular problem doesn't mean it's a useless prop. The choice was doom Gaza, or doom Gaza and also a bunch of other people. Not pulling it also doesn't stop the train, but it also doesn't mitigate the damage at all.
Pulling the lever does do something. Not a lot, certainly not enough, but something. Not pulling the lever is what actually does nothing, all it does is delude the deontologists into feeling like they took a stand.
No, it isn't. Those are consequences outside my power to prevent. Refusing to vote does nothing to reduce that body count.
Deontologists have self-groomed themselves into thinking refusing to choose stops the outcome. It's immature virtue signaling precisely because it neither manages nor ends genocide. Managing genocide is far better than literally doing nothing.
I see this word, "legitimize", frequently used in this argument, which I think is the main problem. Refusing to participate does not "delegitimize" the system. It does not change the system in any way. "Legitimacy" is not a metric which has any effect at all. It is precisely about clean hands over an actual change in outcome.
That is precisely plugging their ears. Yes, the game is rigged. No, it isn't fair. But refusing to cooperate doesn't suddenly unrig the game. It doesn't save Palestinian children. It just makes you feel smugly superior for not cooperating, for not doing what you can to mitigate damage while you work on building an alternate track.
When you have a strategy to actually make a difference, I'm all ears. Until then, I stand by the obvious conclusion: refusing to participate is childish and self-centered. It's not about building a better world, it's about not feeling guilty in the current one. That's not going to save anyone, it just deludes you into feeling better about yourself.
You're redirecting people to a pressure valve, rather than to disabling the genocide machine. You're talking down on those actually organizing to end the genocide and trying to justify your own complicity in perpetuating it. The actual strategy is to build up organizations like PSL, which are hampered by people having any faith whatsoever in the DNC as a means to prevent harm (which they do not do anyways).
This guy punches left while modding “Pragmatic Leftist Theory” (!PLT@sh.itjust.works). In a surprise to no one, PJ posts there.
Yep, I'm aware. Seeing Lenin brought up and butchered is a new one for me, but nevertheless it makes sense. They start from the position that their liberal bias towards reformism is correct, and try to justify that with theory, rather than trying to understand the context and message actually meant.
Decades of lesser evil voting has led you to support the worst horrors humans can commit.
now whose being deceitful? you completely skipped the 38 million figure. not a word. that's not an accident or an oversight. that's how this system wants you to see it. that's the body count of your "pragmatism" -- people killed by us sanctions, not genocides or ethnic cleansing like everyone else is talking about here. just policy, managed death and you call it "mitigating damage."
you say refusing to vote does nothing. but what has voting done? the system you're defending has killed atleast 38 million people outside american borders while saving dramatically fewer inside. that's not a trade-off. that's a slaughter you've learned to call realism.
you say "managing genocide is better than nothing." but managing genocide IS genocide. slower, cleaner, easier to ignore like the democrats prefer it. you're not pulling a lever to save people. you're pulling a lever to feel like you tried while simultaneously legitmizing more tracks getting laid.
and here's the biggest dodge: you say "when you have a strategy to actually make a difference, i'm all ears." i don't have a plan, but marxists have a plan and it's been around for almost 2 centuries now. it's called refusing to legitimize the system, building dual power, organizing outside the two-party death cult, and ultimately abolishing the conditions that make genocide a natural outcome. it's fine to disagree with it, but don't pretend the only choices are lever a or lever b.
you've already decided that anything outside voting for the lesser evil isn't a strategy. that's not pragmatism; it's learned helplessness with a moral license.
also refusal to cooperate isn't plugging your ears. refusal is the only leverage people have when the game is this rigged. you don't delegitimize a system by playing along; you delegitimize it by withdrawing cooperation. that's not childish; it's literally how every actual movement for abolition in history started -- by refusing to play.
so no, i don't have a plan to stop the train tomorrow with a single vote. neither do you. the difference is i'm not pretending my lever-pulling is saving anyone while atleast 38 million lie dead at the feet of your "realism." and at least leftists are actually building something instead of just managing the bleeding.
Still you, because your refusal to participate does nothing to reduce that figure.
Refusing to vote didn't save those 38 million, it just condemned others. Voting helped install people who at least rendered some degree of aid, which again is better than the literally nothing that refusing to vote accomplishes. The 38 million is only relevant to your choice if you can make a choice that saves them. You made your choice, they were not saved. It's a purely emotional attack with no actual bearing on the choice.
Around for 2 centuries with no actual material success. It's time to stop pretending that this is a useful strategy. It's time to stop pretending that it's anything other than childish self-soothing.
This is closer to an effective strategy, but it's in no way incompatible with voting lesser evil in the meantime. The only ones who think it is are self-centered deontologists who forever let perfect be the mortal enemy of better. Do you think leftist voters don't also organize? Don't also try to build dual power? Don't also try to abolish genocidal conditions? They're just wise enough to use all the tools at their disposal to the degree that they can be used. Refusing to use a tool because it doesn't solve every problem is asinine.
When you're standing at the lever, those are the only choices. That doesn't mean you can't take other actions, but those are your only actual choices in terms of lever pulling.
You've got it exactly backwards. That precisely describes refusing to vote because the system is rigged. You can't fix every problem with voting, so abandon voting so you can feel morally superior.
No it isn't. Again, "delegitimization" isn't a real thing with any actual material effect, and you need to divest yourself of the illusion that it is. Withdrawing cooperation doesn't dismantle the system, it just forfeits your ability to give input. The illegitimate system is going to keep chugging along without you.
I never claimed to. I only claim to have some small input to mitigate damage. Solving the problem requires other actions, but voting is one action to make the problem easier to solve, and less damaging in the meantime.
Except your non-lever-pulling is equally responsible for 38 million dead. I am a leftist, I am actually building something. I just haven't internalized your helplessness to believe that managing the bleeding is incompatible with that. Managing the bleeding is what preserves something to save. You're content letting the world go up in flames so you can have a revolution in the ashes. I'd like for there to be people left to save by the time the left gets its act together.
"It's critically important to preserve the fascist, genocidal empire! (I'm totally a leftist though...)"
I sure hope you're not referring to USAID here. It was a weapon, not a charity organization.
I, a leftist, really think you all need to put down those goo-goo-gaa-gaa ass marxism books. You just want to feel superior and you're stupid babies. What you need to do is BUILD something. By voting! You need to MANAGE the bleeding by CAUSING the bleeding. You are content to watch the world burn. I vote for the people who burn it. We are not the same.
What?
it's called satire
Of what? If you're ideologically opposed to voting in bourgeois elections, read what one of those goo-goo-gaa-gaa Marxist books had to say on the subject
You are misinterpreting Lenin's work enormously. What Lenin is describing is fronting working class parties in bourgeois elections, like what PSL is doing, not working within bourgeois parties in bourgeois elections. This is abundantly clear if you read Lenin, Lenin's central thesis is that the working classes need their own, united party, and that said party needs to combine legal and illegal work to grow. The DNC is not a communist, socialist, or even vaguely anti-imperialist organization, it's an imperialist party representing capital alone.
I have read it. And either you're just cynically referencing an argument you haven't read yourself, or you're missing two key points of what Lenin's saying there. First, he's not talking about voting for 'the lesser of two evils' he's talking about voting for an explicitly socialist party with revolutionary politics. And the point of doing that isn't to do democratic socialism, it's to demonstrate to the masses the conflict between liberal democracy and actual liberatory politics. The ruling class would never allow a peaceful surrender of their power so a truly socialist party would be stymied and sabotaged by all methods, dirty and illegal included.
What you're arguing has nothing to do with what Lenin's arguing in that link.
That's awfully presumptuous. His argument is to cater your suite of strategies to the citizenry you're surrounded by, and their class consciousness. Strategies ill-suited to the material conditions you find yourself in do not help your cause. Insofar as the proletariat is invested in the system, you must use that system.
Yes, obviously, endeavor to enlighten them. But the people are slow learners, and just because your leftist friends are ready to derail the tram does not reflect the class consciousness of your countrymen. Even the Germans in question had a higher level of class consciousness than modern Americans. Lenin's argument logically extends.
This is just bowing to sponteneity. The party's role is to raise the consciousness of the proletariat to their level, not to remain where the working classes are at. That's the purpose of political parties, to organize and create proletarian intellectuals as a counter to bourgeois intellectuals. Otherwise the proletariat stays at the level of trade union consciousness if it has no means to see the political struggle as a whole.
Stop dragging Lenin through the mud to justify supporting imperialists. Lenin's point was never to just follow along with whatever is popular among the proletariat without analyzing if it's achievable or not, it was to raise them to correct praxis.
Want to uphold Lenin? Start with an analysis of class, what's the class makeup of the US Empire? Largely labor aristocrats, whose spoils have been eroding for decades. The petite bourgeoisie is solidly in the MAGA camp, and big tech capitalists have merged with the big finance capitalists as imperialism is decaying. The people are largely disillusioned in the electoral process. Settler-colonialism is still a primary contradiction internally.
What is to be done? Build up a party like PSL, that upholds indigenous rights and is trying to unite the proletariat at the front lines of every major struggle, both domestic and anti-imperialist.
This is word salad