• stickly@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    Projected climate collapse deaths by 2050: 14.5 million, about 250k per year.

    Gaza deaths to date: in the range of 80k-100k, hard ceiling of ~2 million.

    What could be more sacrosanct than the one and only habitable planet we’ll ever get? Certainly not a piece of paper?

    I live in a first world country with solid resource access, I can tell you for sure I won’t affected as much as the people being cooked to death in India. Why should I care about them?

    It’s revealing that you weigh one favorite group of starving victims against the millions of others. Just because one is direct human cruelty and the other is direct and malicious social murder?

    Don’t tell me you care about both equally, because that’s clearly not the vote you want to cast.

    • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 days ago

      Yup. We had a chance to maybe turn the bus but no, we’re going right off the cliff, gunning the engine no less, thanks to people who would rather cling to a single issue instead of mitigate harm across the wider spectrum.

      • Kage520@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        4 days ago

        Voting options were not:

        A. Genocide

        B. No genocide

        They were: A. Genocide in Gaza

        B: genocide in Gaza + maybe Ukraine + maybe losing democracy + rolling back environmental protections + enabling the best friend of a known pedophile child trafficker… Etc

        C. B, but with a side of smug self satisfying moral high ground

        You are not more moral for choosing C.

      • stickly@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 days ago

        Guess what, you can both care about the environment AND not commit genocide.

        Oh really? Which candidate on the ballot in 2024 who had that platform? None? Well I guess I’ll opt for the one that’s at least 1 for 2.

        The conversation was always about harm reduction, but keep imagining that one policy is the only thing that matters.

          • stickly@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 days ago

            Nah man, plenty of other people all over the world are harmed way more by the Trump administration. Take your head out of the sand if you’re going to pretend to actually give a shit about anything

              • stickly@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 days ago

                Holy fuck open your goddamn eyes. Way worse is continuing that policy PLUS literally every grift, corruption, destruction, repression, depression and violence of the 2nd Trump term. What the fuck are you even arguing here?

                  • stickly@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    4 days ago

                    Who said it was unavoidable? What the fuck is denialist about needing to cast the obvious vote on this specific election day? You’ve got nothing to actually add, your “argument” presents no alternatives, just chastisement about my strategy. Why do you even bother?

              • stickly@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 days ago

                Ok so they did that. Now what are my new options in the voting booth? Does that actually change my voting strategy in any way?