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.
I saw the term “harm reduction” fucking everywhere before the election. I eventually realized they meant it as an argument to not vote for Dems. “Why should I vote for harm reduction it’s only harm reduction”. Looks like everyone fell for their trick.
Then probably you live in the USA. Why would I see a term that is only relevant for elections of another country? What do you know of porvarihallitus? It’s a relevant political phrase that I saw a lot during the previous parliamentary elections, but probably you have still never encountered it.
Yes. Because I have first-hand experience on what it feels like when it’s clear that neither Republicans’ or Democrats’ program would be something I’d wish for.
If you want to get the likes of me to vote against fascism, then you need to sell it as a vote against fascism.
And if you mean that you saw the phrase “harm reduction” in newspapers you read – did also the anti-democratic people see it?
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.”
The target audience is people who will upvote any shitty meme that affirms their shitty politics.
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.
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.
I saw the term “harm reduction” fucking everywhere before the election. I eventually realized they meant it as an argument to not vote for Dems. “Why should I vote for harm reduction it’s only harm reduction”. Looks like everyone fell for their trick.
Then probably you live in the USA. Why would I see a term that is only relevant for elections of another country? What do you know of porvarihallitus? It’s a relevant political phrase that I saw a lot during the previous parliamentary elections, but probably you have still never encountered it.
You entered a conversation that was clearly about US elections.
Yes. Because I have first-hand experience on what it feels like when it’s clear that neither Republicans’ or Democrats’ program would be something I’d wish for.
If you want to get the likes of me to vote against fascism, then you need to sell it as a vote against fascism.
And if you mean that you saw the phrase “harm reduction” in newspapers you read – did also the anti-democratic people see it?