The world needs a US president who respects evidence
The world needs a US president who respects evidence
As Kamala Harris and Donald Trump face off, the fate of US democracy, science and evidence-based policy hangs in the balance.
sci fi timeline
You are Here----->
I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time -- when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness...
The dumbing down of American is most evident in the slow decay of substantive content in the enormously influential media, the 30 second sound bites (now down to 10 seconds or less), lowest common denominator programming, credulous presentations on pseudoscience and superstition, but especially a kind of celebration of ignorance
― Carl Sagan
Why was manufacturing shipped overseas? Profit. Why are technological powers in the hands of a few? Because those few were able to become more profitable than their competitors. Why does the state not prioritize public interest? Because those with the most influence direct the state to prioritize their profit above all other considerations. It's profit. It's all because of god damn profit.
Evidence is to respected, except for where it upends personally preferred narratives. This can be, and often is, true for any human who has preferred narratives, I'm afraid.
Anyway, what you posted isn't the kind of evidence that's really the problem. The issue is one of morality and logic. Some people say "stop killing innocent people", and others agree that killing innocent people is bad, but Americans must (at least temporarily) accept the killing of brown children in a far-off country in order to reduce harms in America, and for Americans to hold their nose as they vote.
This is not how morality works, though, and it is not how logic works, either. Logically, if harming the innocent is wrong, then it is wrong to do so even as a sacrifice for the greater good of those who you live amongst. Morally, I wouldn't press a button to kill a stranger in another country to make my life better, and I wouldn't judge someone else who did that positively. Instead, these ideas are practical. It is a practical concern to ignore morality and logic. But I'm not someone who elevates the practical above the moral certainty that hurting innocent people is wrong.Some people raise the beguiling spectre of the trolley problem, which is a shit thought experiment when used to explain real-world harm.
Source: medium
In 1976, Judith J. Thomson expanded the problem into the classic version that most of us know today.
Would you push a fat man off a bridge to stop a runaway trolley from killing 5 workers on the tracks?
This version is not just about switching tracks, but brings the moral issue much closer to home by saying if you want to save 5 people, you yourself have to push someone off a bridge.
To make matters worse, these are also the only two choices that you have. There is nothing else you can do; there is no escaping the problem.
[...]
Like many philosophy instructors, I have given this thought experiment to my students many times. In my philosophy classes, Students of all levels and ages are repulsed by the experiment. They think that it is stupid that there are only two choices and that there is nothing else they can do.
[...]
But something I have never seen given much consideration is the initial response that my students and so many others have to the problem.
[...]
Our intuition is that if we are in a lose-lose moral situation where the right moral action does not feel satisfactory, then someone else made a bad moral decision already; leaving us holding the bag.
We literally can't get one tho...
Harris has said she thinks Biden is handling Israel fine and she wouldn't do anything different.
Biden is ignoring evidence Israel is using US weapons in war crimes which is in violation of the Leahy law.
So sure, we all need a US president who respects evidence, but we won't get one for at least 4 years, and if Kamala wins I see no reason the DNC would let us have a primary.
Anyone still sprouting this line hasn't listened to a single thing actual progressives and defenders of Palestine have said in recent weeks.
Harris's position is bad but voting for anyone else is so much worse right now. Bernie Sanders is correct, as usual.
Bernie Sanders is as guilty of genocide as anybody else in the US congress.