Look, I really appreciate the sentiment, but it’s time to acknowledge that those non-voters are not “misinformed future allies” any more than the MAGAs are. They are either accelerationists or fundamentally broken logically, and which form their indecision takes makes no difference -they are enemies of progress all the same, and to the extent there is ANY hope for the future, it relies on building a path AROUND them, not WITH them.
At least some of them need to be peeled off, however, considering the raw numbers. If there are no gains at all in votes for the anti-fascist candidate, that just means the fascists would continue winning, indefinitely.
… assuming, of course, elections matter going forward.
There’s a third, less pleasant option that you’re avoiding. I understand why - I don’t relish it. But the ballot box has failed. Even if it hasn’t COMPLETELY yet, we are not even 5 months into this term, and look where we are. Harping on getting non-voters to vote is the 2025 equivalent of the reactionary generals running cavalry charges across no-man’s land in WW1. It is fighting the last war. But that war is lost.
Not avoiding. The cartridge box may end up as necessary. But regardless of whether fascism ends like Franco (by luck), like Pinochet (by ballot), like Portugal (by mass resistance), or like Italy (by the bullet), the ballot is both a useful addition (insofar as it can reduce the legitimacy of the government) and a necessary tool for the postwar society. I don’t want to endure a fascist government now because people were too stupid to vote, so I can say that I definitely don’t want to get rid of these fascist fucks only for it to happen the same way again.
If we let the principle of “Not voting against fascism is okay if you feel really strongly about teaching the shitlibs a lesson!” endure, we will be seeing it make additional visits, along with the fascist ghouls it benefits.
Oh, I’m not saying it’s okay. I would never say it’s okay. I AM saying that they’re a stubborn distraction, and engaging with them is a waste of time. It took us a good long time for people to finally realize that the MAGAs and Republicans were unreachable, and by then, how many millions of collective man-hours were wasted? The stakes in 2024 could NOT have been clearer, and these non-voters STILL rejected the logic. We don’t have the time or energy to waste now pursuing THEM either. Now is the time to engage in asymmetric warfare of various kinds, including not only protests, but ensuring continued access to “subversive” information despite the tightening noose of control by setting up reliable hosting for it outside of the US government’s control, and otherwise generally trying to preserve what we can in the face of what’s going to become an ever worsening environment. We simply don’t have the time to waste on these people.
Yeah, it’s the height of cluelessness that Democrats act like anyone who isn’t a Trump supporter somehow owes their vote to the Democratic Party. If the only thing your party has to offer is Not Being Republicans then why should anyone owe them anything.
If the only thing your party has to offer is Not Being Republicans then why should anyone owe them anything.
Your moral purity in refusing to give the Dems an ‘unowed’ victory will be written on the tombstones of millions of people that the fascists are murdering. Thank you for your service in teaching those damn dirty Dems a lesson o7
You do realize this is exactly the kind of melodramatic over-the-top garbage that puts people off wanting to engage with politics in the first place, yeah?
You do realize this is exactly the kind of melodramatic over-the-top garbage that puts people off wanting to engage with politics in the first place, yeah?
Sorry, I understand my death and the deaths of millions of other people are too ‘melodramatic’ for the tastes of middle-class suburbanites for whom politics is a species of sport.
Yeah keep ranting and accusing people of mass murder for not voting for your guy, that’ll win us over
Yeah keep ranting and accusing people of mass murder for not voting for your guy, that’ll win us over
If only the Dem circus was more entertaining, then you could’ve been convinced to vote against the slaughter of disadvantaged groups by literal fascists. But it wasn’t entertaining enough, so the lives of marginalized groups was a price you were willing to pay to give the Dems a ‘thumbs-down’.
“How dare you be such a jerk? Guess I have no choice but to make innocent people suffer over it. That’ll show you!”
Incredible, it’s like a constant stream of disingenuous mischaracterisation. You’re proving my point far more than you’re dispelling it.
I mean, I’m over it. Do what you feel like. It’s clear whatever the future is, this argument we’re having now? Has no part in it. Vote or don’t vote for whoever you want. Feel or don’t feel guilt. I don’t particularly care about the details of how you see it. The time when it might have mattered either way? Is over. Sure, maybe pre-election it was like trying to convince you not to kill the hostage - but the hostage is dead now. Not arguing that battle anymore. It’s irrelevant. You do whatever it is you like, but I’m never, ever, ever going to see the action in any other way, and at this point there’s absolutely ZERO point in discussing otherwise. It’s all academic. The trolley problem stops being a moral quandry when everyone is dead already. If you feel good? Great! You get my unironic and genuine thumbs up. Live your best life, my friend.
I’m not entirely following the thread here because it feels like I’m simultaneously being told that it’s already Game Over but also that only the Democrats can save us.
They’ve shown very clearly the last five years that they have neither the ability nor the interest to do that. If anyone’s going to save the country, it’s not going to be them.
I do agree with people voting. But the disanalogy is that in the last one both parties wanted to drive off the cliff. Neither stood against genocide.
Calling it harm reduction is thinly veiled 'both sides same" nonsense / “n n not enough”. Dems deliver when they get a majority in all 3 houses. Want more? Then give them more majorities.
Harm reduction is highlighting that both sides are not the same. Fuck’s sake.
It’s basically saying one side harms, the other side harms less. Aka both sides harm. Aka both sides same. I see it as “both sides same” lite.
People got called out on “both sides same” so they switched the term to “harm reduction” to slip in the notion that both sides harm. I already see it in this thread.
You don’t understand the intended message of this post. The people abstaining from voting because the ice cream is not vegan ARE the “both sides are the same, none will bring real change, that’s why I won’t vote/vote 3rd party” people that ultimately help steer the bus off the cliff. “Harm reduction” as used in this post is an argument for voting for the better of two realistic outcomes, even if that outcome doesn’t meet your purity standards. The point being that one option (bus driving off the cliff) is much much worse than the other.
Letting them think/use the term “harm reduction” lets them mentally put in the category of harm. I’m saying you can’t let them mentally put it into the category of harm or less harm or harm reduction, because they still see it as harm and thus won’t vote for it.
I understand the intended message. I’m saying it doesn’t work because to them it’s still harm.
(*I think this is flipped around. I see the term “harm reduction” originating from the “both sides same” people. They use it to say “it’s only harm reduction, it’s still harm, therefore I won’t vote for it”. Or “Dems only reduce harm, not help, therefore I won’t vote for them”. Don’t let them fall into that trap of what’s basically both sides same.)
I think the main target audience here are people who already think that both sides do harm. I think what is being told here is that “even if we were to accept that both sides do harm, then the other side does it magnitudes more than the other one.”
Couple thoughts on that 1) Don’t play into their notion that both sides harm/both sides the same. That’s what they want. 2) We need to show them dems actually deliver. That’s not harm reduction, that delivering. Then the conversation turns to how to get more.
I’m realizing lots of people have binary thinking. It’s either harm or help. So the idea of harm reduction allows them to mentally put it in the same camp as harm. And once it’s in the same camp, then they think it’s all the same, and then they think there’s no point in it.
If a person is anti-dem, there’s no way you’ll convert them with logical arguments. Or with any arguments at all. But you can get them to vote anti-Trump.
Different strategies for different situations. And, from a European viewpoint, it sounds ridiculous that Dems somehow “deliver”. From my perspective they are a massively lesser evil. But, in USA I would definitely vote for them just to vote against fascism. They might be stupid, but they are not malevolent. Trump is. (And stupid as well.)
You wouldn’t be able to convince me to like a party as far right to as the Democratic party. I wouldn’t like even the European right-wing parties, and they are – even in places such as Poland – to the left of anything USA has to offer. And if you tried spending your effort into making me actually think I might want more of what Democrats can offer, you’d be wasting your effort. I could vote such a party for what they offer less, but definitely not for what they offer more!
I’m going to post this first; I think one point of confusion is that I see the term “harm reduction” originating from the “both sides same” people. They use it to say “it’s only harm reduction, it’s still harm, therefore I won’t vote for it”. Or “Dems only reduce harm, not help, therefore I won’t vote for them”. Don’t let them fall into that trap of what’s basically both sides same.
If a person is anti-dem, there’s no way you’ll convert them with logical arguments.
That’s part of the problem with trying to argue “harm reduction”. You’ll never convince them trying to argue “harm reduction”. It plays right into what they want: to portray Dems as harm, just harm lite. That’s what they want, for you to call it harm reduction, which is harm lite, which is on the same side as harm, which they won’t vote for.
For the rest of this message, you’ve fallen for their trick. I started to elaborate but I’m going to cut it off there.
I don’t think I’ve fallen for their trick, because this is the first time I’m even observing a conversation on this topic. It hasn’t traditionally been a very relevant subject on this side of the pond.
The target audience is people who will upvote any shitty meme that affirms their shitty politics.
Holy fucking shit
Do you not see it already on this thread? I already saw “more like the ice cream does not exist” and “more like one side wants to drive off, the other wants to drive really close so they can decide to drive off later.”
Yes, but they’re explicitly in opposition to harm reduction as illustrated in the meme.
And that’s the problem. Letting them use the term “harm reduction” lets them categorize it as “harm”, therefore they won’t vote for it. Because they see it as harm. Because they see it as all on the same side of harm (both sides harm/both sides same). There’s longer explanations in my other replies.
Convince them that Dems help.
Convince them that Dems help.
Okay, but there are three problems with that approach:
-
That is even more starkly against their worldview than “Dems do less harm”, which, as responses in this fucking thread show, they are already reluctant to accept even outside of the context of harm reduction.
-
That ‘Dems help’ has to necessarily point towards specific issues of policy, and policy tends to be much more contentious as to whether any given policy is actually helpful in the long run or just less-bad than the alternative.
-
The fucking Dems themselves.
-
This is excellent thanks for sharing
The other four didn’t vote because there wasn’t a party against genocide.
Electoral puritanism like this is a big part of why we now have concentration camps in America.
Thanks for that.
The puritanism is that both parties are fascist.
Both parties are equally bad, that’s why we’re letting 65 million Latinos get deported instead of not letting 65 million Latinos get deported. Less genocide is actually just as bad as more genocide
You are pretending Biden/Harris were promising less genocide, which is wishful thinking on your part. Biden/Harris let them do what they wanted to whatever degree they wanted, and pretended to fight back.
You are pretending Biden/Harris were promising less genocide, which is wishful thinking on your part.
Nope. I feel like we’re looking at this from two different perspectives. Comparing 2025 to 2024, there was always going to be more genocide. Comparing the two potential 2025s (the one in which Trump wins and the one in which Harris wins), one of them has more genocide than the other, and one of them has less genocide than the other.
Maybe if I put it this way it’ll make more sense: a smaller increase in deaths is preferable to a larger increase in deaths. Of course, a reduction in deaths would be preferable to both, but that option wasn’t available.
Where you and I will probably never agree is that you think Harris/Biden would have meant less genocide.
Biden did a bunch of lying about that, but you give him the benefit of the doubt and I cant. And Harris had a prominent bloodthirsty zionist as a husband (recent marriage) and a bloodthirsty zionist campaign manager. Thinking she’d break left after her actions and words to the contrary was never realistic. Emhoff explicitely said he’d spend his time in office fighting antisemitism, which he equates with any criticism at all of Israel.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/20/us/politics/doug-emhoff-kamala-harris.html
When both Trump and Biden give the zionists full support and free reign, theres no real distinction to be had around more or less genocide. It just doesnt exist. Harris and Biden were there to soak up campaign donations and ignore their base.
you think Harris/Biden would have meant less genocide.
…than trump. Less genocide than Trump. Who is presently committing a genocide against the Latino population in the US.
Removed by mod
Funny how Democrats never used to have to complain about Purity Tests back when they were doing things like attempting to pass universal healthcare. In fact I’d literally never even heard the phrase (in that context) before last year and suddenly it’s everywhere.
Removed by mod
The camps already existed with Biden, Trump is just putting more money into them
Yeah the downvotes you’re getting really illustrate the three monkeys approach of centrists. Outright denial not only of opinions, but objective facts. Trump immigration policy is just Biden’s turned up a notch, but with a lot of performative cruelty thrown in. Biden’s immigration policy is just Trump’s turned down a notch, with less performative cruelty. Trump vice signals, Biden virtue signaled. But their actual policies on immigration are very very similar.
Bullshit.
Found Blue MAGA.
Trump immigration policy is just Biden’s turned up a notch, but with a lot of performative cruelty thrown in
So what you’re saying is it’s not just Biden’s turned up a notch, he’s doing it differently and much, much worse. The idea that, because both of them are immigration policies that include deportation, they must be the same thing is infantile
One of them is in favor of deporting all of the Latinos, but really it’s the same policy lmao
Biden ran concentration camps. I’m sorry to have to inform you of this.
I’m aware of this. Trump’s are worse.
Your moral compass is broken.
JFC deporting people if their asylum claim fails isn’t the same as what trump is doing. That you’re trying to equate them is mind bogglingly bad. Anything to confuse the issue and say b b both sides same, huh. I recognize your name so I’m not going to reply further.
There’s a genocide on the bus too?
Libs will tell the craziest stories just to avoid reality.
Libs will tell the craziest stories just to avoid reality.
“Avoiding reality is when you use literary devices that are so complex literal children can parse them.”
I’m sorry that you can’t quite grasp what an analogy is yet. I hope you continue your education at some point.
I’m sorry you’re unable to defend a single point without resorting to contrived scenarios where every option except the one you want is unbelievably stupid or cartoonishly evil
I’m sorry you’re unable to defend a single point without resorting to contrived scenarios where every option except the one you want is unbelievably stupid or cartoonishly evil
There were only two realistic options in the 2024 election.
Are you saying Trump et co wasn’t unbelievably stupid and cartoonishly evil?
Otherwise, you’re in agreement with me and throwing a fit over nothing.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Single issue voter is still committed to being uncommitted.
Removed by mod
An issue easily adressed but stubbornly dismissed for no reason
Removed by mod
And those four are functionally equivalent to people who didn’t vote because they’re okay with either option
Genocide is much more like driving off a cliff than having ice cream or not voting.
It’s kind of sad that I even have to say this.
I mean if we want a better analogy, Harris represented the “crash the bus into a building” party, and Trump represented the “crash the bus into another bus and explode” party. 3 people are voting for building, 4 people are voting for bus and explode, and 4 people are saying “I don’t care what we crash into.”
One of those 4 thinks they’re making some kind of statement by saying “I don’t want to crash at all, so I won’t be voting.” He is indistinguishable from the 3 that just don’t care
Maybe stop with the dumb fucking analogies and talk about the real situation for a change. It’s not too complex to talk about (and if it is to you, holy fuck, maybe shut up and do some reading first?) and you’re fooling nobody with your deflections.
I have no problem talking about the real situation. One of the parties is in favor of less genocide, one of the parties is in favor of more genocide, and non voters don’t care whether we get less or more genocide.
Of course it would be better for everyone we could have elected a third party, but the choice was between Harris (sells weapons to Israel) and Trump (sells more weapons to Israel and also starts a genocide here in America), and non voters didn’t care which side won. In the absence of the option you want, you have to make the best available choice.
Less genocide, but not the stopping of genocide? Man, do I not feel sorry for gringos when they act like this is a moral choice.
How would you know, anyway? They refused to acknowledge there was a genocide in the first place while they sent a record amount of money and weapons. Oh wow, such harm reduction.
No genocide > less genocide > more genocide. No genocide was not on the ballot; the choices were less and more. Reread the last sentence of the comment you replied to. I guess you’re right though, the Democrats could have started a genocide against the American Latino population. I guess there’s no way to know which option was less harmful
Analogies are useful, not just for understanding a difficult subject, but for seeing a familiar subject in a new perspective. When your audience is eschewing logic due to compartmentalized thinking, analogies can help break them free.
When your main issue isn’t on the ballot, it doesn’t matter in the election.
The other four didn’t think this through because only one party had a subset of their coalition who opposed genocide, and also opposed 2 other genocides: the one Russia perpetrates against Ukraine, and climate change (leaving aside things like, you know, women’s rights and LGBTQ+ rights… And not as a case-in-point the internal genocide of poor people when 50,000 Americans will now die from being dropped from Medicaid thanks to a bill that only
Republicansthe cliff-divers would have passed).Hey thanks for not helping. Wait, no. No thanks. You failed everyone and yourself, guaranteed extra double genocide and learned nothing.
Removed by mod
If you’re against genocide then you shouldn’t vote in any elections because America is built on genocide.
Removed by mod
You’re not supposed to talk about the real world, idiot, I specifically provided a scenario where you’d rather die than eat ice cream 🙄 I stg sometimes I feel like only I understand politics smh my head
this sounds very utilitarian. you known who else was utilitarian? thanos!
Who let Tim Pool in here
A world with half as many people in it would be so nice. Thanos had the right idea.
Allowing the Democratic Party to keep fielding right-of-center neoliberals who’ve consistently and repeatedly made concessions to the far right over the last four decades without ever demanding anything back, and allowed them to shift the Overton Window way over to Nazi territory, is NOT harm reduction.
You change the party in the primaries. You choose which party wins in the general.
When your choice is between a shit sandwich and fascism, you eat the fucking sandwich.
The Democratic Party has literally gone to court and won rulings arguing that they don’t have to follow their own rules or primary processes. They’re a private club, and they are free to put their thumb on the scale whenever and however they please. Those doing the most to change the Democratic Party are completely bypassing the party and organizing through external organizations. The Democratic Party will demand that you spend decades canvassing and working in the trenches before making any meaningful contribution. And they will only allow the most craven and corrupt to have any real seat at the table. You only get to climb the Democratic party structure if you tow the party line.
You don’t change the party in the primaries.
I’ve been trying to do that for decades and it doesn’t work.
That or this is what most of the party actually wants.
Either way we’re screwed.
Yes and now we’re driving off a fucking cliff and there won’t be any chances to elect a progressive candidate
i mean i’ve had some ice cream, i contest the validity of the last position
Its more like 9 people on a bus, 3 vote to drive off a cliff, 2 vote for a break to get ice ream and then continue driving towards the edge of the cliff after, 2 scream why the fuck are we continuing to drive towards the edge of the cliff, the other two believe things will just be the same regardless if they vote or not. Meanwhile the people who want other people to vote for a pitstop on the way to impending doom and death are complaining that fbe people with the most mkst realistic assessment of the situation are being unreasonable and if we are going to die anyway we might as well have some icecream (delay the inevitable and hope we ca. fix things before we get to the edge of the cliff but at this rate it looks like it’ll only get worse because one side turns the mechanism as far as they can get away with and the other ratchets back into a convenient position for the other side to turn the mechanism to their advantage again.
If you don’t have ranked choice voting you do not live in a democracy
Yes, you do. Just a shit one. I hope I don’t have to explain how that it still a lot better than fascism.
It just puts you on the top of the slide towards fascism
Even if you have ranked choice voting, you probably still do not live in a democracy.
Til that only Australians and the Irish live in democracy. It’s used in other places, ofc, but on smaller scales.
Not to say I’m against it or anything, I’m all for it, but your statement is a bit exaggerated.
Wow. Really? Preferential voting should absolutely be more common.
Was just as surprised as you are. And yeah, it really should be. Shame
Many countries claim to be democracies but if the available choices are only x, y or z. The people are not truly expressing their will, 30% could like x, 30% could like y, they could all hate z but z gets elected because 40% like z.
That’s not democracy.
Dunno, the most recent example was Romania. In the first round, 40% voted for the far right cunt and all the others had 20% or less. In the second round where there were only 2 candidates left, Nicușor Dan won with 53% and the far right cunt got 46%. So… Z doesn’t always win.
Ranked choice means it’s easier for voters, but when it’s not available voters are capable of understanding the scenario you describe and voting accordingly.
Many times I haven’t voted for my preferred candidate and instead voted for the candidate most likely to defeat the candidate I couldn’t stomach getting into power. Here in Canada we call it voting strategically and if you look at the polling data it definitely happened last election (and in many others in the past).
I’d like to have ranked choice, but it’s insane to say it’s not a democracy without it. But multiple rounds of voting (like France has) is better than ranked choice as it gives a clear choice to voters in the final round. But having multiple voting rounds is expensive and people might prefer to just vote once and have it done with, so ranked choice may be preferable for many people.
…how’s that working out for australia?..legitmate question; last i heard they were nearly as fascist as we are stateside…
It’s not bad to have high standards, as long as they don’t get in the way of making things better
So you’d let the bus drive off the cliff because non-vegan ice cream doesn’t fulfill your standards for ice cream?
No, I’d rather vote for vegan ice cream first, then vote against driving off a cliff.
Unfortunately our current system doesn’t allow for that, so obviously I vote against driving off a cliff, but it feels so stagnating.
You will be please to hear that we are currently driving off the cliff. No more stagnation, isn’t this great?
I’m referring to / summarizing the Ratchet Effect.
Obviously movement for the sake of movement is not inherently good. But when our only allowed form of action is to vote and we see that voting has no or negative effect, it seems fruitless.
Because a slightly more realistic scenario is that the Dems vote to just throw some people off the cliff, and that’s agreed between the two parties.
False analogy. The actual choice was had in 2024 was “drive of the cliff at 40 mph, or drive off a cliff at 38 mph.”
And you’d choose 40?
The problem is you only look one election ahead. You’re myopia is what made you drive off a cliff in the first place.
Yes, it’s exactly like this dumb, unnecessary analogy! Just that they didn’t tell you the ice cream parlor is at the bottom of the cliff anyway.
The analogy is wrong right analogy would have been either drive of the cliff or push a kid bound to wheelchair off the cliff.
This is why I voted for Kamala, as it would’ve reduced harm for a little while…Long enough to figure out an effective counter. Right now, I am using my voice as best as possible to reduce further harm (with the Big Bad Bill coming into effect soon) I dread losing my insurance and wasting away because untreated it’s a guarantee. Given that I live in a mostly Red State, I could be one of the 17 million affected, or spared because I work part-time… If there are elections in the future, I will be voting with harm reduction in mind every time. Unless America becomes a doomed Fascist Nation which devours itself from within.
Stay strong, talk to your neighbours if feasible where you live, work together locally. Every major catastrophe in my area of the world, even ones which totally upended my country (Romania) for a generation, my family survived via community and friend groups.
In a collapsed or collapsing state, mutual aid is mandatory for survival.
As I am socially anxious; it’s rough to interact with others. However, I will stay strong and try to participate when possible. As, communities do survive if they actually work with one another despite their differences. We can survive Trump’s cursed presidency through working together. The rich fear that shit, this is why the policies Republicans are pushing are so disruptive for the working class. To reduce the odds of them being able to work communally to fight against oligarchs and their mouthpiece Republicans/MAGA sympathizers.
Best of luck. Whatever else happens, I hope you manage to make it through to the other side.
survived via community and friend groups.
People often downplay associativity and are often encouraged to because power to the people scares the oligarchs. You’re easier to subdue if you’re alone.
Join your local community in any ways you can.
You just had 4 years of Biden “reducing harm”. How did that work out?
You just had 4 years of Biden “reducing harm”. How did that work out?
Has ‘harm reduction’ not been explained to you in simple enough terms yet, or are you just pretending to be incapable of digesting simple concepts?
This is just a troll, clearly wants to argue unnecessarily.
The “drive off the cliff” party vs the “drive off the cliff, but ever so slightly slower and also we’ll wave some rainbow flags I guess” party. I know who I’m voting for!
Honestly, seriously. Would harm reduction have happened if Kamala was elected. Yes. Did I personally core for her? Yes.
Did this get them elected? No? Shut the fuck up and stop blaming voters because the Democrats don’t know how to do politics on purpose so they don’t lose their bribes.
Want a better analogy? There’s a bus driving for a cliff and one group votes to minimize the impact of driving off the cliff while another group says please please drive faster off the cliff and do a backflip. A third group says guys, can we perhaps maybe not drive off the cliffd? And the rest call them insane and drive off the cliff
Bad ice ream is still better than driving off a cliff. You can tell me all day how bad the ice cream is and how shitty the place is because they don’t even try to make good ice cream, they don’t even try to get customers or do a good job. It’s still better than driving off a cliff. I wouldn’t blame the ice cream store for making shitty when people choose not to vote for it. They knew the alternative and still decided to leave it up to fate.
Sure, a nice ice cream shop is easier to get people to vote on, but when the alternative is going off a cliff, the ice cream is kind of a moot point. But sure, let’s blame the ice cream shop for not being attractive enough when anything but going off the cliff should be the obvious choice. Yes, the ice cream shop could have made it easier, but any sane person can see she obvious choice.
Let’s put it this way. If one side is saying they will kill everyone who isn’t straight and white, and the other side says they want to ban gay marriage. Now I think queer rights is really important but I would vote for the second to prevent the firsr. But people seem to be screaming “I’m never voting against gay rights!” Cool, so when the other guy wins and it’s way worse, at least you feel good.
I keep voting for ice cream and I get told “we can’t get ice cream because we have to vote to not go off a cliff again”
Yeah, I think not going off a cliff is pretty important though.
Right, but eventually the cliff guys win and we go off the cliff anyway, and even if they never win we don’t ever get ice cream.
The solution seems we kick them out of the car.
But that’s not how voting for a direction works. I think this analogy is just starting to fall apart after this much discussion, we’ve taken it too far haha.
Listen, I’m all for taking out the trash and not just taking small wins to survive, but I just don’t see the path. I might be missing it, there’s plenty I don’t know, but survival at least would have let us survive a little longer.
I don’t see the path out of just surviving either.
Except maybe jumping out of the car.
Tuck and roll, brother
You get ice cream, just not as much as you want because some people refuse to vote.
I blame both. The Democratic Party and everybody who did not vote for them. My heart is big, there is enough room to hate everyone!
That’s the spirit!
Honestly, seriously. Would harm reduction have happened if Kamala was elected. Yes. Did I personally core for her? Yes.
Did this get them elected? No?
What’s the relevance of this inane statement, again?
The Democrats aren’t the ice cream party. They are the “drive off the cliff slowly party” and spent most of their efforts on attacking people who didn’t want to drive off the cliff at all. Driving off the cliff is what both the Republicans and Democrats stand for and it is only “harm reduction” in the framework that people have to accept that the oligarchy will harm them and gives them the illusion of choice how they want to be harmed, rather than a democratic choice between being harmed and not being harmed.
The Democrats aren’t the ice cream party. They are the “drive off the cliff slowly party” and spent most of their efforts on attacking people who didn’t want to drive off the cliff at all. Driving off the cliff is what both the Republicans and Democrats stand for and it is only “harm reduction” in the framework that people have to accept that the oligarchy will harm them and gives them the illusion of choice how they want to be harmed, rather than a democratic choice between being harmed and not being harmed.
The point of the term ‘harm reduction’ is that it is acknowledging that participation in bourgeois democracy is buying time rather than fundamentally reforming the system, I can’t believe how many fucking times and in how many fucking ways I have to explain this to a community that is purportedly leftist.
So what do you do with that time? Hillary was buying time, Biden was buying time, Biden/Harris was buying time…
Instead what happened in these times was things to get worse, the “buying time” party bragging about its exploits in mass deportations, wall building and bombing abroad and ferociously fighting anyone that wanted to bring improvements. Even now we see the exact same thing with Mamdani. The DNC has “learned” absolutely nothing, because everything is going according to plan. Mamdani is threatening the plan. Tump is not.
When people decided to prevent ICE gestapo abducting people in their communities in California, Democratic mayors had the police crack down on them.
Your strategy is all messed up and it didn’t lead you anywhere. With another four years of far right DNC politics as “harm reduction” you would have only fostered liberal complacency and ignorance and on top of it created the economic conditions for the next iteration of Fascism to hit back even harder. There is no fighting with the US political establishment. There is only fighting against it, if you ever want to see the US become a reasonably okay country.
Fucking fantastic that Thalmann is making a comeback.
The amazing thing is that there is no Thalmann. Our Hindenburg is so disliked that nobody has to split the vote for him to lose.
I laugh but I cry. But yes.
My point was more about the attitude of “Let fascism come, it will lead to Better Things™” though.
This guy gets it, if the opposition party cares more about maintaining their legal bribes than punishing those doing the bribing and accepting the bribes then they bear an equal responsibility to the destination that those in the car are driven to.
Well said. I tried to make this point elsewhere in the thread and got showered with downvoted, so it’s nice to see there’s still some sanity left in the world.
It sounds like the problem is you don’t have enough allies in the fight against either, and your strategy is to bank on getting more allies in a fight against fascists than you would against democrats.
Good luck with that, sincerely; but I think it sounds like a bit of a gamble. Fascists are quite good at terrorising moderates into compliance and killing or imprisoning their opponents.
