That’s definitely true, I probably should have been a little more clear in my response, specifying that it can run at startup, but doesn’t always do so.

I’ll edit my comment so nobody gets the wrong idea. Thanks for pointing that out!

To put it very simply, the ‘kernel’ has significant control over your OS as it essentially runs above everything else in terms of system privileges.

It runs at startup, so this means if you install a game with kernel-level anticheat, the moment your system turns on, the game’s publisher has software running on your system that can restrict the installation of a particular driver, stop certain software from running, or, even insidiously spy on your system’s activity if they wished to. (and reverse-engineering the code to figure out if they are spying on you is a felony because of DRM-related laws)

It basically means trusting every single game publisher with kernel-level anticheat in their games to have a full view into your system, and the ability to effectively control it, without any legal recourse or transparency, all to try (and usually fail) to stop cheating in games.

Why doesn’t it apply to genocide? What’s the defining line?

Trump has not only supported the actions of the US in relation to Israel, but he’s very clearly heavily racist, an ethnostatist, and would like nothing more than to increase Israel’s power as a US ally by letting them genocide the Palestinian population completely regardless of any complaints by his constituents.

Genuinely, which side do you think is more likely to stop if pressured enough by the American people, or by international orgs? Trump, or Kamala? Because, at least personally, I doubt Trump would be more likely to stop it, let alone even just give it less support in general.

If we only have these two candidates to pick between, I’d rather go for the one that we at least have a chance of convincing to stop, rather than one that we know will likely just ignore the American people in favor of his own ideals.

There is no “harm reduction”

There most certainly is. If one side is worse than the other, voting for the one that does less harm reduces (but doesn’t eliminate or fix) the harm being done.

I’m not saying it’s a solution, it’s definitely a bandage on a bleeding wound, but a bandage is better than letting it bleed out.

can you imagine anything that would cause you to not vote for the democrats? If full throated support for genocide isn’t a bridge too far, I have to wonder if you have any absolute principles at all.

If the Democrats implemented policies that would cause greater overall harm than the Republicans, then I would vote the other direction, but that would imply a total switch in partisan policies. (for an example of some policies I support to give you a general idea of what I consider to be harm, I’m a socialist, utilitarian, I believe all lives have equal value, I’m pro-abortion, anti-fascist, I hope you get the gist.)

Voting for the greater evil never gives you a beneficial edge. Voting for nobody when the greater evil benefits from that won’t give you a higher likelihood of implementing positive policy in the future.

I absolutely don’t support the Democrat’s endorsement of a genocide, but acting as if they’re the only ones doing it is silly. Trump is very clearly even more genocidal, and would not only implement even worse policy with regard to the Palestinian people, but would also do numerous other genocidal acts here, and in other locations abroad.

Statistically speaking, the only thing that would give the genocide a higher likelihood of ending, when the only two possibilities in this election are Democrats or Republicans, is the Democrats, because they will likely do the least amount of genocide by comparison. If we want any hope of actually stopping the genocide, we first want the most sympathetic party to that idea in power.

But of course, if you don’t believe harm reduction as a concept even exists, then I wouldn’t expect this argument to convince you. It’s fine if you aren’t though. You’re absolutely entitled to your own opinion, however wrong I may think it to be.

Then I suppose you simply must reject the world we live in right now.

Both sides are going to continue the genocide, we know that, it’s their stated positions. The most we can do with our votes in the current election is take a stance of harm reduction, since that’s the only choice available. Anything else won’t make a change to the system of oppression facing the Palestinians today.

But will they, that’s the question.

They have the ability to, but if they won’t, then we still end up with the same two choices. And if picking the other side won’t make them change their mind, then whatever they can do is irrelevant in a conversation about what will produce the best tangible outcome.

That depends on how you define utilitarianism though.

That minority also factors into a utilitarian’s assessment of what will maximize happiness. If 10% of the population hates the 0.1% minority, but oppressing that minority would also harm them, then you have to factor in the relative harm caused to them as well, not just in raw %'s, but also in terms of if the value given to the 10% from their oppression would outweigh the harm done to those being oppressed.

Furthermore, I’d argue most utilitarians would argue that the very hate towards that minority in the first place is what causes harm, not the minority themselves. The best utilitarian action to take would be to reduce the hate for that minority, and increase their acceptableness, rather than oppress that minority to satisfy the 10%. Especially considering we know this tends to not just be a one-time thing, and that hate will likely continue, leading to further oppression over time, and harm not only to the minority, but also to the mental well-being of the 10%. Thus, the best course of action would be to eliminate the hate, not the minority.

Of course, utilitarians aren’t a monolith, but that’s at least how I would interpret the situation.

If you ever find yourself advocating against voting deciding elections in favor of your own personal opinion trumping all others, you might just be a fascist. Of course, he’d probably take that as a complement.

No one on lemmy has ever made this argument

Here is someone just three days ago arguing with me about how shaming Trump is shaming people who “oppose genocide,” and then calling me a nazi for having to vote within the two-party duopoly if I want to reduce Trump’s chances of being elected.

https://lemm.ee/post/45471808/15689197

If you can’t understand that both parties will continue the genocide regardless of anyone’s vote, then I think you should reconsider how “rational” you see yourself to be.

Have a good day.

Just like how the moment their videotape rental history was exposed, that was when privacy became an absolute must in the case of video rental services.

You’re a fucking nazi because you materially support genocide.

Whether I vote in this election or not, the genocide will continue. Whether only one person votes for either party and every other American abstains, or whether every American votes, the genocide will continue. I am not materially supporting the genocide, I am only trying to reduce the maximum amount of people who will inevitably be slaughtered.

because unlike them you’re voting DURING the holocaust, not in ignorance of its future.

Your entire argument is based around ignorance of the fact that this genocide will inevitably happen no matter who I vote for, but that there will likely be a substantially worse outcome if Trump is elected.

Fucking piece of shit narcissist nazi. Amazing coincidence that you feel so comfortable flaunting your pathological self importance in this conversation and have zero value of human life for people outside of yourself in politics. A fucking piece of shit nazi to the bone.

I can see you have no actual point to make, and just enjoy calling other people nazis. Again, good job not answering the actual question. In case you missed it: “You’re arguing that me voting for Kamala is wrong. Cool, what else should I have done? This entire argument is you trying to convince me, so what are you trying to convince me of?”

If you can’t provide an answer to this extremely basic question that directly calls into question your very motive for this conversation, then I have nothing else to say to you.

Good job not answering the question. You can’t just use “nazi” as a buzzword to make your ideological opponents sound worse.

Being forced to vote for the lesser of two evils to reduce overall harm is not the same as actively choosing to vote for the demonstrably more fascist party. If anyone would be closer to Hitler in this election, it would be Trump. If there are only two choices, I will vote for the one that’s less like Hitler to stop the one that’s more like Hitler from getting into power.

The thing is, I don’t really care what argument you’re trying to make, because everything you’re saying is totally unproductive. Regardless of whatever point you’re trying to make, you’re trying to convince me. What should I do as a result of your argument?

You’re arguing that me voting for Kamala is wrong. Cool, what else should I have done? This entire argument is you trying to convince me, so what are you trying to convince me of?

You’re voting for a fascist with different aesthetics.

Democrats, so far, have not shown to me that they are fascist in any meaningful way. They actively engage in messaging and political action that abhors the idea of a natural social hierarchy, have still worked to uphold general democratic ideals, and are still liberal. (among much else) That alone doesn’t meet what most people would consider fascist. They’re simply just not very good, but I wouldn’t go so far as to call them fascists. not yet, at least. If they continue going further along that path, I will always reconsider based on the best evidence I have available.

if you decide to vote for either of the major candidates this time you’re giving material support to a genocide

If the only two options on the ballot are genocide, and even worse genocide, and not picking just increases the chances of the even worse genocide happening, I’ll pick the option that does less genocide any day. I am not choosing to support a genocide, I am choosing between two possible genocides, of which one will inevitably be chosen regardless of my input. I have no choice in whether it will happen, only how badly it will.

I am a utilitarian. When given a limited set of options, if one will reduce the overall harm caused, I’ll pick the one that does the least harm. If I must pick between someone killing 5 people, and someone killing 10, I will pick the one who kills 5. (assuming I have no way to prevent either option in the first place)

This election will happen. One of these candidates will be chosen. It is the same dilemma, a choice where a result will occur, but to what degree it affects the world is something I can influence.

Knowing Trump’s past policy and rhetoric, and comparing it to that of Kamala, and the Democratic party more broadly, it’s extraordinarily easy to tell that Trump will cause more overall harm to the world, not just in the case of the Palestinian people, but of all people across the globe. As long as the opposing party will do less harm, that is who I will vote for in order to reduce his chances of winning. Not necessarily because I support every policy they have, but because I know they will produce the least harm comparatively.

Use your energy organizing.

I can do that and vote according to my utilitarian ideals at the same time. These are not mutually exclusive.

it’s no exaggeration to call you a nazi. Fuck you.

Get me a definition of Nazi-ism and explain how it ties into my rhetoric thus far.

In a system where my vote categorically will not positively influence society if it is used to vote outside of the duopoly, I have two choices, the blatantly fascist candidate that is substantially more akin to Hitler than any Democrat, or the somewhat more mild Democrat.

If I vote for a third party, my vote will only give the fascist a higher chance of gaining power than he otherwise would.

If I vote for Kamala, at least there’s a lesser chance of the fascist winning. That’s a start, and I can then continue advocating for the Democratic party engaging in better actions going forward, engage in direct political action, and do what I can to push the overton window to the left, hopefully making it harder for fascists to get into power in the future.

I do not enjoy this system, but it is the one I live in. I can either vote for Trump, or Kamala. Any other choice simply removes any meaningful effect my vote would have had.

So, what do you suggest I do? I’m serious. Do you think I should have voted for Trump instead?

I’m saying Israel should be given the right to Palestinian land, and that we should support Israel in their genocide of innocent human beings while denouncing attempts to get a ceasefire? Wow, that’s news to me.

I believe there should be an immediate ceasefire, the return of all land taken from Palestinians to Palestinians, and significant monetary reparations paid to the Palestinian people to cover the cost of rebuilding the society Israel bombed into rubble. I believe Netanyahu should be charged for his crimes.

If anything I actually say and do lines up in any way with what you think Trump has said he’d do, I’d be quite surprised.

Your answer is shaming people who oppose genocide.

Trump opposes genocide? Dang, I guess when he said to “finish the problem” in relation to Israel’s invasion of Gaza, released a plan for the Middle East that included giving Israel sovereignty over their illegal West Bank settlements that were the result of their ongoing campaign against the Palestinian people, and told Netanyahu to “Get your victory and get it over with,” while also denouncing calls for a ceasefire, then saying “I will give Israel the support that it needs to win but I do want them to win fast.”

I completely get your point, and to an extent I agree, but I do think there’s still an argument to be made.

For instance, if a theme park was charging an ungodly amount for admission, or maybe, say, charged you on a per-ride basis after you paid admission, slowly adding more and more charges to every activity until half your time was spent just handing over the money to do things, if everyone were to stop going in, the theme park would close down, because they did something that turned users away.

Websites have continually added more and more ads, to the point that reading a news article feels like reading 50% ads, and 50% content. If they never see any pushback, then they’ll just keep heaping on more and more ads until it’s physically impossible to cram any more in.

I feel like this is less of a dunk on the site by not using it in that moment, and more a justifiable way to show that you won’t tolerate the rapidly enshittified landscape of digital advertising, and so these sites will never even have a chance of getting your business in the future.

If something like this happens enough, advertisers might start finding alternative ways to fund their content, (i.e. donation model, subscription, limited free articles then paywall) or ad networks might actually engage with user demands and make their systems less intrusive, or more private. (which can be seen to some degree with, for instance, Mozilla’s acquisition of Anonym)

Even citing Google’s own research, 63% of users use ad blockers because of too many ads, and 48% use it because of annoying ads. The majority of these sites that instantly hit you with a block are often using highly intrusive ads that keep popping up, getting in the way, and taking up way too much space. The exact thing we know makes users not want to come back. It’s their fault users don’t want to see their deliberately maliciously placed ads.

A lot of users (myself most definitely included) use ad blockers primarily for privacy reasons. Ad networks bundle massive amounts of surveillance technology with their ads, which isn’t just intrusive, but it also slows down every single site you go to, across the entire internet. Refusing that practice increases the chance that sites more broadly could shift to more privacy-focused advertising methods.

Google recommends to “Treat your visitors with respect,” but these sites that just instantly slap up an ad blocker removal request before you’ve even seen the content don’t actually respect you, they just hope you’re willing to sacrifice your privacy, and overwhelm yourself with ads, to see content you don’t even know anything about yet. Why should I watch your ads and give up my privacy if you haven’t given me good reason to even care about your content yet?

This is why sites with soft paywalls, those that say you have “x number of free articles remaining,” or those that say “you’ve read x articles this month, would you consider supporting us?” get a higher rate of users disabling adblockers or paying than those that just slap these popups in your face the moment you open the site.

Except we don’t have any widespread evidence for cocaine being taken outside of highly specific medicinal cases being helpful to the health and wellbeing of the individual.

When it comes to gender affirming care, we have substantial evidence that proves it is safe and effective, as even a cursory glance at medical research on the topic will show:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanam/article/PIIS2667-193X(23)00118-7/fulltext

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3109/09540261.2015.1115753

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/article-abstract/2789423

https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/full/10.1089/trgh.2015.0008