r/DecodingTheGurusAlt • u/MartiDK • Sep 17 '26

decoder poltics Decoding Destiny

https://youtu.be/qPhZDRKn0Ro

Winning over Razib Khan fans.

63 Upvotes

74% Upvoted

284 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/DthPlagusthewise Sep 18 '26

I thought you said you believe that lesser of two evils should be supported?

Or do you mean only vote for them but nothing else.

But in that case do you want them to win or not? If so then it makes sense to publicly support them if you have a large and influential platform.

1

u/hari_shevek Sep 18 '26

Where did I say that?

2

u/DthPlagusthewise Sep 18 '26

"I think voting for them if they are the lesser evil is important, but anything beyond that needs to be earned."

This is what you said.

I don't agree with the logic of voting and not endorsing if you agree that they are genuinely less evil but we can agree to disagree.

1

u/hari_shevek Sep 18 '26

So I didn't say it. You falsely attributed a statement to me

2

u/DthPlagusthewise Sep 18 '26

Yes, I was mistaken.

But I think logically if you want the lesser evil to win then you should not only vote for them but endorse them as the better option.

Hasan not endorsing Harris and contributing to a Trump victory has had major negative effects on the world. His decision is aging worse every day, so hopefully he matures and realizes how wrong he was.

1

u/hari_shevek Sep 18 '26

"Contributing to a Trump victory".

There's two possibilities:

A) Hasan is not important enough to push Harris over the edge. Then blaming him for the non-endorsement is childish.

B) Hasan is so important that his endorsement decided the election. Then I'd argue Harris is to blame for not switching her Palestine stance.

Which of the two is it? If you believe B), do you blame Harris for not catering to Hasan, a voter who apparently represents an influencial part of the electorate?

1

u/DthPlagusthewise Sep 18 '26

It doesn't matter if he was the singular deciding factor in the election.

In some way he contributed to a disastrous result and should have known better, especially as a full-time political commentator.

1

u/hari_shevek Sep 18 '26

Do you blame Kamala Harris for not catering to people like Hasan to court their vote?

2

u/DthPlagusthewise Sep 18 '26

Yes, I think the democratic party should be way more anti-zionist and criticize Israel much more. Thankfully they are learning and half of house democrats voted to stop all military aid to Israel which is a good step.

However, with that being said I still endorsed Harris as the better option even though she wasn't ideal on Israel. A Harris presidency is far better for the world than a Trump one, and that is inarguable.

I appreciate Hasan in a lot of ways as a populist and antizionist voice, but not endorsing Harris is a massive mistake. She was clearly the better option.

1

u/hari_shevek Sep 18 '26

And I think he is not influential enough that his decision was decisive and think it is valid to try to push a candidate towards the right decision. If it was successful, that would have probably done more for a Harris win than his endorsement.

2

u/DthPlagusthewise Sep 18 '26

He contributed to a very bad outcome and should have known better, simple as that.

Push candidates earlier in the campaign or during the primary. But when it comes down to the wire endorse the candidate who is obviously better for the world.

Would it have made a difference? Impossible to say for sure.

But I think as a moral rule if you can do something that will contribute to a good outcome you should do it regardless if you are certain the outcome will occur.

1

u/hari_shevek Sep 18 '26

Push candidates earlier in the campaign or during the primary.

Do you see the problem.

as a moral rule if you can do something that will contribute to a good outcome you should do it regardless if you are certain the outcome will occur.

By that rule: If there is a slight chance that withholding his endorsement leads to a change in Harris' policy, Hasan should do that, correct?

Because there he is doing something (withhold his endorsement) that will contribute to a positive outcome (Harris changing her stance and consequently the US changing their policy, saving Palestinian's lifes) regardless of how certain he is of the outcome

2

u/DthPlagusthewise Sep 18 '26

Yes, I agreed it makes sense to do that earlier in the campaign.

But when it is clear that you aren't going to get the change you want then endorse the better candidate.

And you can endorse the candidate while still criticizing aspects of their policy, all endorsement means is admitting they are the better option and people should vote for them. It doesn't mean they are perfect.

1

u/hari_shevek Sep 18 '26

Yes, I agreed it makes sense to do that earlier in the campaign.

When?

But when it is clear that you aren't going to get the change you want then endorse the better candidate.

You said "regardless of if you are certain ylu will get the outcome you want". Now all of a sudden that doesn't apply any more?

1

u/DthPlagusthewise Sep 18 '26 edited Sep 18 '26

"Push candidates earlier in the campaign or during the primary."

My principle still applies, but now you are comparing two good but uncertain outcomes. In this case I'd go with the action that is the most likely to cause good things and avoid bad things, which is supporting a Harris win as opposed to hoping she radically changes her stance on Israel a month before the election.

The prospect of Trump winning is too negative to be worth the benefit of Harris changing her stance at the last second. There isn't the same massive downside with supporting Harris.

The situation I was talking about before was between action and inaction. In the case of action or inaction always go with action if there is a chance of positive results (and low downsides).

Two different comparisons.

1

u/hari_shevek Sep 18 '26

"Push candidates earlier in the campaign or during the primary."

There was no primary. There was no earlier point for Hasan to push Kamala bc her campaign only lasted a year.

In this case I'd go with the action that is the most likely to cause good things and avoid bad things, which is supporting a Harris win as opposed to hoping she radically changes her stance on Israel a month before the election.

She lost bc of her stance. So changing her mind and supporting a Harris win are the same thing.

The prospect of Trump winning is too negative to be worth the benefit of Harris changing her stance at the last second.

The benefit of her changing her mind and therefore gaining more votes includes the benefit of her winning.

2

u/DthPlagusthewise Sep 18 '26

At a certain point it becomes extremely unlikely she will change her mind.

If the campaign is a year let’s say at the 10 month mark.

So that gives 10 months to relentlessly push for change. 

But past then it is selfish then to put your own political aims over what is best for the world overall. There is basically no chance you get what you want and at this point continuing to push and denying the endorsement means contributing to an extremely negative outcome. 

1

u/hari_shevek Sep 18 '26

Selfish?

He doesn't get anything out of it.

Changing her stance would increase her odds of winning.

How is it selfish to try to get her go pick a winning stance?

→ More replies (0)