Shower to the People

...

...

Are you really going to refuse to help the homeless because you're spooked the charity is run by religious people? I hate to break it to you, fam, but most charities in the U.S., and many of the good ones, are run by churches. Being an Orthodox Christian doesn't preclude you from being a good person; in fact, your little holy book says you're supposed to give to the poor and all that.

...

So you advocate not keeping the poor alive? In that case I don't give a single shit about any "socialism" you advocate for, or any political theology you preach. Helping your fellow man in time of need is quite a bit more basic than the existence of capitalism, and extends far further than the invention of a market economy. If you don't want to donate to charity, fuck out of the thread, faggot.

Actually, on second thought, stay and argue your edgy philosophy about letting the poor starve to death because capitalism is unjust or accelerationism or some shit. The thread could use the bumps so other people can see it.

You misunderstand, you should have read the full quote.

I would like to organize the poor to fight for their rights and improve their condition in a way that isn't contingent on them having to beg for alms from the rich (or, in this day an age, other workers that don't have it quite as bad as them)

I don't want to give the homeless a shower. I want to destroy the conditions in which people cannot take their own showers.

You can do both. A false dichotomy is not any more logical than the "emotional response" you claim charity to be.

nononono, obviously charitable works are better off being done than not, but let's not delude ourselves into thinking they are '"the'' solution

i'm poorly paraphrasing zizek

Wrong fetish.

I'm aware. What I'm saying is that I'd rather move towards permanent solutions for the poor than temporary ones.

Give a man a fish, he has food for a day. Overthrow the landlord that's been robbing the poor of their fish, they have food for the rest of their lives.

I always thought it went "build a man a fish, and he'll be warm for a day, teach a man to fire, then there are stars in the universe"

FTFY

Just not to any "charity"

...

Ftfy. Do you even trolley problem bruh?
Also trolley problem thread.

I give all my disposable income to the FSF so Dicky Stallman can afford his hotpockets.
my.fsf.org/donate/

...

Dumpan

...

...

Do you have the DIO version?

What's that?

This one?

that's the one thanks comrade

we shitposting nao

I love the trolley problem so here's some OC.

Does the other operator know the conditions too?

Of course.

Goddamn, that's a tough one.

But this isn't a prisoners' dilemma.

If he pulls, I should pull and if he does not, I should not. The correct choice for me is not independent of the other operator's choice.

You don't know whether he will pull or not. The trolley blocks your view.

Yeah, I got that.

Are you sure you know what the prisoner's dilemma is?

Right back at you.
You're embarrassing yourself.

The most logical thing to do is to pull the lever in that case, IMO.

If you pull the lever and the other guy doesn't, it would be his fault (and vice versa), and no one wants to carry that responsability.

So, in such situation both of them will pull the lever just to cover their asses if the other guy doesn't.

(Or you could just shout "Pull the lever!", whichever one you prefer)

Btw, If you tried to make a trolley version of the prisoners dilemma, this serves exactly the opposite purpose.

That's not how the trolley problem works, though. If you pull the lever and the other guy doesn't, it's your fault they died because you pulled the lever. If he simply walks away (as in the original trolley problem) he can't be held responsible (did not participate in the harm).

This one is actually right. In the prisoners dilemma, you get more if you betray regardless of whether or not the other person betrays. But because of this, it's organized to always cause more damage when both betray rather than both taking the small loss of both not betraying.

...

You're right, since betraying is not pulling the lever, it should be set up like this.

You'd need to make some way in which one person pulling the lever harms the other operator while sparing one of your own, while both pulling causes minimal loss of life but harms both somehow.

wew

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

So, if you choose to let more people die when you know you have a chance to save them, you're not responsible, but, if you accidentally kill more people while trying to save them, because the other person chose to let them die, you're responsible?

wew

Letting more people die as a result of your inaction ostensibly being the ethical choice because it means you remain a bystander is kind of the core of the trolley problem, yeah, but that is why it is a philosophical dilemma rather than a question with a cut-and-dry answer.

What if the people tied to the tracks aren't really "people"…you know, just tankies

Would that change your decision?

...

...

I understand that but, what I'm trying to say is, isn't an inaction also an action?

If you choose to do nothing, aren't you actually doing something that makes more people die, instead?

Isn't it more ethical to try to save people and fail because of external, alien actions, than choosing not to act and, in some way, being "not responsible" for the deaths you indirectly caused?

The idea that inaction isn't action stems from the concept that pulling the lever means you participate in the harm, whereas if you walk away you can consider yourself an innocent bystander, which the first image in
hints at. Think of it like this: If you pull the lever, you are an accessory to murder. If you don't, you aren't involved in the scenario. The third image in jokes that the only way to remain truly innocent is to be unaware of the dilemma; once you are forced to make a choice, you are no longer a bystander.

Soap making jobs?

They pay them to either make or cut soap (not sure) to be given to those who shower.

I was hoping that this was a Holocaust pun.

That's exactly the concept I don't agree with.

Why choosing not to pull the lever makes you innocent? You can participate in the harm in a passive way in that case, and, if you're (in a way or another) responsible for the deaths, isn't it a more ethical choice to try to save them and fail, instead of walking away and participating passively?

IMO, the only way you can be innocent if it's you don't have the choice to pull the lever to begin with.

But you're not just saving people, you're also condemning others to die.

You're also condemning others to die if you just walk away. In the other case, at least you try to save them, and, If you fail, it's only because the other person chose not to try to save them.

Not true. If both of you pull the lever, you still kill one person.

I know, but this is about looking for the best choice, and walking away and passively killing 5 people, certainly, isn't the best one.

"best" as in, more ethical

most* ethical, damn it.

Switching the tracks creates an imperative to intervene whenever and wherever possible to minimize harm and is inconsistent with not living your life in exactly that way.

So, does not switching the tracks create an imperative to remain as a bystander?

If you have the choice to save someone that's hanging off a cliff, would you let them fall just to be consistent with your life?

Its inhumane, almost medieval in my eyes because i live in a comfy welfare state.

How about this?

whoops

Ebin XD i was just getting my daily dose of hatred.

I really like this idea.

No. I'm saying that arguing positive action to avert harm is morally necessary in this scenario is inconsistent with not arguing posite action is necessary in every other such situation.

...

that's bretty fucking great.

But charity won't solve any problems.. and it's bandaid to cancer… And it doesn't promote class con or revolution…

…

Then again, with or without it, the homeless aren't gonna rise and occupy empty houses, are they?

So, I don't give anything and am OK with myself thinking "if they wanted, they could rise against capitalism. So, they actually like living like this. Who am I to tell them what to do? I shall continue to promote my ideas, but why should I change the material conditions of only an individual?"

You're retarded and your philosophy about charity is simply a justification for your lack of empathy.

That's an awfully spurious claim to make about a comrade tbh

Yes and no. The consciousness of one individual is no more significant than the material conditions of one individual. A given person could be red as fuck and it would do him no real good without a politically independent, direct organization of the working class. The collective consciousness is the political arena of our activity.
There is something quintessentially "american dream" about disregarding laws on your individual path to security and prosperity, I for one used drug manufacture to help pay for college. But placing the moral onus on the individual and his ideology to overcome his own circumstance by any means necessary is neoliberal folly.
I agree with you on the matter of charity being fundamentally useless, but the "why don't they just revolt?" betrays a certain reactionary discouragement.

Someone who scorns the wellbeing of other workers because they're "lazy" and "could rise against capitalism if they wanted" is not my comrade. Someone who asks "why should I change the material conditions of only an individual?" is not my comrade. An injury to one is an injury to all.

But that's not enough to attack his empathy.

Sounds like an emotional appeal, and our very strength is our placing analysis over emotion to find solutions. Though it seems we agree somewhat on the matter of his analysis.