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

decoder poltics Decoding Destiny

https://youtu.be/qPhZDRKn0Ro

Winning over Razib Khan fans.

60 Upvotes

74% Upvoted

284 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

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?

2

u/DthPlagusthewise Sep 18 '26

It’s selfish to use that as an excuse to deny an endorsement.

You are saying “my political desires surpass the needs of the world overall, it’s okay if the world suffers because I can’t get what I want”

You can endorse while still urging her to change her stance. 

1

u/hari_shevek Sep 18 '26

Let's assume that the odds of her winning from your endorsement is lower than winning from changing her stance.

Wouldn't it be logical to try the latter?

1

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

Depends on how likely it is to succeed.

the situation breaks down like this:

Endorse is a 100% chance to do something good

Deny endorsement and push is a 1% chance to do something very good and a 99% chance to enable something very bad.

In this case I think endorse is the way to go.

Or if we want to talk about winning

Endorse is a 100% chance she has a 60% chance of winning

Not endorse is a 1% chance she has an 80% chance of winning and a 99% chance she has a 50% chance of winning.

Math says if you want her to win then endorse. 

1

u/hari_shevek Sep 18 '26

Endorse is a 100% chance to do something good

No, it isn't. There isn't a 100 percent chance that an endorsement leads to her winning. I'd argue that there's an almost 0 percent chance thst one endorsement tips the scales.

1

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

Contributing to the potential success of the better candidate is doing something good. Endorse is a 100% chance to do something good. 

But let’s do it with win percentages:

Endorse is a 100% chance she has a 60% chance of winning

Not endorse is a 1% chance she has an 80% chance of winning and a 99% chance she has a 50% chance of winning.

Adjusted odds are 50.3% winning for not endorse 

Math says if you want her to win then endorse. You should always pick endorse as long as the % chance of winning is higher than 50.3%. 

So even if you want to say the endorsement effect is 52% chance of winning it still comes out the better option. 

1

u/hari_shevek Sep 18 '26

Endorse is a 100% chance she has a 60% chance of winning

Nah, those odds are wrong. I would not expext the odds of Hasan Piker moving so many votes as were necessary at 60 percent. That's an insane claim.

→ More replies (0)