Keeping fascists out of office, by any means necessary…means voting for their strongest opponent, every time there’s an opportunity…in addition to every other means at our disposal. Not voting against them, gives them power in a vacuum.
You had 3 choices with 2 outcomes. If you want to accelerate a western collapse without a working commune to fill the power vacuum or have no post game plan, you’re an asshole.
Voting for the lesser evil is harm reduction in the same way that giving a fentanyl addict morphine is harm reduction. You cannot vote your way out of fascism.
Hey, so actually the term “harm reduction” came exactly from that kind of scenario. Giving heroin addicts methadone is exactly harm reduction, probably the best possible example actually.
We can certainly vote for slower, weaker fascism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilean_transition_to_democracy
One shouldn’t put all one’s faith in the ballot, but rejecting it unconditionally is just as fucking stupid. Ceding every tool imaginable to the fascists out of some bizarre purity complex helps no one.
But you can vote to prevent them from taking power in the first place.
Unfortunately voting for Democrats isn’t harm reduction. It’s just a vote against harm acceleration. Which has a value don’t get me wrong. But it’s not the same thing. The only way we’ll ever see harm reduction. Is if we primary every candidate from every party. Actually making them compete and not just continuing to legislate based on momentum. As well as voting in every tiny local election. Focusing on them and empowering your local politicians and party. To take away from the national party’s power.
Unfortunately voting for Democrats isn’t harm reduction. It’s just a vote against harm acceleration.
… that’s what ‘harm reduction’ means.
As a term, it’s meant to suggest that voting for bourgeois democratic parties will never, itself, lead towards a more fundamentally equal society, else it would be a (theoretically) viable path in and of itself.
As a term, it suggests that there is a path that will result in a less horrific situation than if the alternative succeeds - such as more capitalist bourgeois democratic parties, or, more relevantly to recent events, outright fascist parties.
Harm reduction, in this context, means reducing the coming harm, not necessarily reducing current harm.
“Harm reduction” doesn’t mean reducing the current level of harm to a lower level, it means reducing the future increase of harm. Voting for harm reduction is literally the exact same thing as voting against harm acceleration. It is the same thing. The term comes from drug policy, where you recognize that people will harm themselves no matter what, so you focus on reducing that harm rather than trying ineffectively to eliminate it entirely.
Still though, voting as far left as can win in every local election is an excellent start. We’re not going to change anything by voting for 3rd party no-names in the general election. We’ll do it by building local representatives into Governors and members of Congress with track records that inspire confidence, and then pushing them nationally.
If it doesn’t reduce harm. It’s not harm reduction. Prevention perhaps. But reduction has a different meaning. Reduction means not only stopping new harm. But reducing existing as well. Something that even if we are being extremely generous to Democrats is something they struggle to even attempt to do.
Don’t get me wrong I’m 100% on board for the general message of the meme. Placing Perfection over achievable will get you the worst outcome every time. However voting itself can never be harm reduction. No matter how often you do it. That’s going to require community action, making these elected officials feel accountable and responsible for their actions.
That’s not what “harm reduction” means. It is an established term with an established meaning. Reinterpreting it does not change the established meaning of the full term. If the term was “harmful status reduction” or “harm reversal” you would have a point, but “harm” is an active verb. The term means what it means. I am using the term as it is defined.
And I agree, focus should be on achievable over perfect. And real action does extend beyond voting. But voting is still a useful tool, not the total extent of action, but a useful element of action. Third-party/non voters prioritize perfect over achievable, and in return get neither.
They’re using the literal definition of the words. How does that redefine anything?
I can see why you might think that!
Harm is both a verb (to inflict damage) and a noun (the damage thus inflicted). The term harm reduction has a specific meaning which disambiguates the intent.
Unfortunately voting for Democrats isn’t harm reduction. It’s just a vote against harm acceleration.
Ummm…that’s literally what “harm reduction” is, though. You are minimizing the damage fascists can do, and giving yourself more time to get alternatives in place.
The only way we’ll ever see harm reduction. Is if we primary every candidate from every party.
You can’t do that if you don’t vote against fascism in every election…even the ones where you don’t have a favorite candidate. If you choose to sit out the elections that don’t have an ideal candidate…then how do you expect one to run, once the fascists use their power to cancel future elections? You have to keep them out of office, if you want to have any hope of pursuing better alternatives.
Two-party voters couldn’t stop them either.
Got pretty close. Closer than 3rd party voters for sure, non-voters aren’t even on the scoreboard.
Also I’m not sure you understand the meme template.
pretty close. a failure.
not a great reason to blame other voters for failing.
Again, do you know how this meme template works?
not that you asked a first time, but yes, I understand your flawed meme.
what do you need explained?
I didn’t ask the first time, it was a invitation that you did not engage with. Your response implies that no, you do not.
The template comes from the movie “I, Robot” where Will Smith asks the robot if he can compose a symphony, to which the robot asks “Can you?”. The robot is not saying that he can compose a symphony, just that Will Smith also can’t. Your response implies that you do not understand this exchange.
I can provide further explanation if you need it.
I responded that I do understand your flawed meme, although from your comments, I’m not surprised you got confused by direct language.
you need help. ask for it
The response “Two-party voters couldn’t stop them either.” is evidence that no, you do not.
deleted by creator
Almost had me? You never had me. You never had your car.
I think you slipped and responded to the wrong person because what you said makes no sense.
