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.)
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.)