▲ 1964 ▼ Just a reminder (lemmy.world) submitted 2 years ago* by ekZepp@lemmy.world to c/politicalmemes@lemmy.world 762 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] Nougat@fedia.io 25 points 2 years ago (7 children) Notice how they only ever criticize Biden, and never the Republican party, which fully supports Israeli bullshit? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] elliot_crane@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children) Oh I’ve noticed. The way I see it, there are three options when it comes to the “both sides”/protest vote camp, every single one of them is one of the following: a bad faith actor cosplaying as a leftist an accelerationist a misguided idealist who legitimately believes a non-mainstream candidate could win and/or completely disregards the cold hard fact that FPTP means a third party/abstain vote simply endangers the lesser of two evils candidate while empowering the greater of two evils candidate No matter what I will never stop throwing shade at that crowd hard and heavy. The first two on that list will never change. I do hope, however, that continued social pressure on that last type of person will make some of them realize that voting is just as much a responsibility as a right, and consider that maybe there’s a good reason their views are so unpopular. Edited after a good point made by samus12345. Also I noticed the single downvote on every one of my comments. I know who you are lol. Glad to see I’m still living in your head rent-free. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Ookami38@sh.itjust.works 15 points 2 years ago (1 child) What about a more nuanced approach, such as both sides are shit. One side is clearly a bit less shit than the other, and so, I'll vote for that side, out of duress. I don't want to, I want to vote someone I actually believe in. I can't say many good things about the party I'm voting for, but I can't say ANYTHING good about their only viable opponent. And so, in an effort to keep the worst case scenario from happening, I'm going to vote for the only viable option. This is the core of the "both sides" argument to me. We're going to vote dem. But we cannot forget that neither of these parties are the ones we want. It's important to make that known. We are not voting for you because we like you, we're voting for you because we REALLY DON'T LIKE THE OTHER ONE. As long as we keep talking about that, as long as that very critical voice isn't silenced, we can slowly move the needle, until eventually one election we'll actually be able to elect the one we want. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago (1 child) As long as we keep talking about that, as long as that very critical voice isn’t silenced, we can slowly move the needle, until eventually one election we’ll actually be able to elect the one we want. Which is why centrists are so keen on silence from their critics to the left. And only ever the left. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NuclearDolphin@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 years ago The neolib centrists need the right to guarantee their power. The left is the only group threatening that. permalink fedilink source parent [–] samus12345@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago* (4 children) I think there are also misguided idealists who think it's more important that they feel good about not voting for the "genocide" guy while absolving themselves of any blame should his opponent win. They know a third party candidate can't win, but that's not as important as them being "right". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] barsquid@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (11 children) I believe the vast majority of these are privileged people whose family wealth will shield them from legislation they don't want to be subject to. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] samus12345@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago Or just white cis straight males, who will be protected from much of it as well. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (10 replies) load more comments (3 replies) [–] jumjummy@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (2 children) Amen! I feel like my post history is 90% calling out these bullshit accounts, and 10% random other non-political stuff. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] JimSamtanko@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago That’s almost all I do here. These people should be outed for what they are. permalink fedilink source parent [–] elliot_crane@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago Yeah, same. Mine is a mix of dumb memes posted to Ten Forward, dumb joke comments on random posts, and “both siders are fucking morons”-type comments. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Ookami38@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 years ago To be entirely fair, the Republican party does a good job of criticizing themselves. Consider that a lot of the discourse you're seeing is from people who already believe the democratic party is the lesser of the two evils they're probably going to vote for them regardless. If you're engaging in a conversation with someone else, whose only tangible difference between the two of you is that one of you believes Dems are a-okay, and one believes that both parties are shit, the only real talking points they have are what the Dems do that aren't great. Obviously I don't think this is every case, but I know that if I wasn't already primed to have THIS argument, that'd probably be the route it'd take. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Honytawk@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 years ago (2 children) That is why every time someone brings up Genocide Joe, I bring up Turbo Genocide Donny permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] VictoriaAScharleau@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) literally whataboutism permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Theprogressivist@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (8 children) It's not, though. Nice try. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments load more comments (8 replies) [–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 years ago Needs more alliteration permalink fedilink source parent [–] NuclearDolphin@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Biden is the fucking commander in chief. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Congress exists as a coequal branch of the government and is who actually makes laws. The president can only exercise policies to execute those laws. This is elementary school civics in the US. Being commander in chief doesn't mean Biden can change funding and laws on a whim. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NuclearDolphin@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago The president can only exercise policies to execute those laws. From: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2023/02/23/memorandum-on-united-states-conventional-arms-transfer-policy/ If the United States determines at any time that a transfer is no longer in accordance with United States foreign policy objectives, national security goals, or legal obligations, the United States may cease the transfer of or future support for a transferred defense article or service. Biden could act unilaterally here. This is elementary school civics in the US. Yes, and he needs a declaration of war to go to war. 🙄 Just because your education ended with an elementary school reading of the constitution, doesn't mean that's how the country operates in practice. "Checks and balances" exist in name only. Sure the supreme court or congress could strike down new social programs, but war and spy powers exist independently from the legislative and judicial branches. permalink fedilink source parent [–] anticolonialist@lemmy.cafe 1 point 2 years ago Republicans don't pretend to care they wear their bigotry on their shoulder, Democrats are covert in their bigotry and their racism that's why they are often called out for it permalink fedilink source parent [–] barsquid@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I've noticed they will have a little tirade if you ask them what is the logical consistency that they support China despite being "against" Gaza genocide in a way that means they couldn't possibly vote for harm reduction. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VictoriaAScharleau@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) voting is not a harm reduction strategy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] barsquid@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) It is if you think women losing access to healthcare or Ukrainians being massacred is harm. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VictoriaAScharleau@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) voting isn't a harm reduction strategy. a harm reduction strategy would be recognizing those bad things are going to happen and helping people mitigate the fallout. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] barsquid@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Yes, by voting for the party that isn't saying we should have the National Guard brutalize protesters, that protesters should be deported, and that Israel would be justified in nuking Gaza. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VictoriaAScharleau@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) you are ignoring what harm reduction means and pretending voting fits the definition of this specific jargon. it does not, and claiming it does actually impedes the educational work that harm reductionists need to do to advance their strategies. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] barsquid@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Nah, none of that is correct. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VictoriaAScharleau@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) saying something doesn't make it true. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] barsquid@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) I know. From what I have seen of your comments. None of them were correct nor in good faith. Excepting this one, which was correct but not in good faith. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VictoriaAScharleau@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago None of them were correct nor in good faith this just not true. permalink fedilink source parent [–] JimSamtanko@lemm.ee -3 points 2 years ago (8 children) I’ve been pointing that out all the time. They’re never on any posts critical of Trump. Only anything about Biden. It it’s critical, they’re there to agree- if it’s positive, they’re there to shit all over it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments load more comments (8 replies)
[–] elliot_crane@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children) Oh I’ve noticed. The way I see it, there are three options when it comes to the “both sides”/protest vote camp, every single one of them is one of the following: a bad faith actor cosplaying as a leftist an accelerationist a misguided idealist who legitimately believes a non-mainstream candidate could win and/or completely disregards the cold hard fact that FPTP means a third party/abstain vote simply endangers the lesser of two evils candidate while empowering the greater of two evils candidate No matter what I will never stop throwing shade at that crowd hard and heavy. The first two on that list will never change. I do hope, however, that continued social pressure on that last type of person will make some of them realize that voting is just as much a responsibility as a right, and consider that maybe there’s a good reason their views are so unpopular. Edited after a good point made by samus12345. Also I noticed the single downvote on every one of my comments. I know who you are lol. Glad to see I’m still living in your head rent-free. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Ookami38@sh.itjust.works 15 points 2 years ago (1 child) What about a more nuanced approach, such as both sides are shit. One side is clearly a bit less shit than the other, and so, I'll vote for that side, out of duress. I don't want to, I want to vote someone I actually believe in. I can't say many good things about the party I'm voting for, but I can't say ANYTHING good about their only viable opponent. And so, in an effort to keep the worst case scenario from happening, I'm going to vote for the only viable option. This is the core of the "both sides" argument to me. We're going to vote dem. But we cannot forget that neither of these parties are the ones we want. It's important to make that known. We are not voting for you because we like you, we're voting for you because we REALLY DON'T LIKE THE OTHER ONE. As long as we keep talking about that, as long as that very critical voice isn't silenced, we can slowly move the needle, until eventually one election we'll actually be able to elect the one we want. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago (1 child) As long as we keep talking about that, as long as that very critical voice isn’t silenced, we can slowly move the needle, until eventually one election we’ll actually be able to elect the one we want. Which is why centrists are so keen on silence from their critics to the left. And only ever the left. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NuclearDolphin@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 years ago The neolib centrists need the right to guarantee their power. The left is the only group threatening that. permalink fedilink source parent [–] samus12345@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago* (4 children) I think there are also misguided idealists who think it's more important that they feel good about not voting for the "genocide" guy while absolving themselves of any blame should his opponent win. They know a third party candidate can't win, but that's not as important as them being "right". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] barsquid@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (11 children) I believe the vast majority of these are privileged people whose family wealth will shield them from legislation they don't want to be subject to. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] samus12345@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago Or just white cis straight males, who will be protected from much of it as well. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (10 replies) load more comments (3 replies) [–] jumjummy@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (2 children) Amen! I feel like my post history is 90% calling out these bullshit accounts, and 10% random other non-political stuff. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] JimSamtanko@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago That’s almost all I do here. These people should be outed for what they are. permalink fedilink source parent [–] elliot_crane@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago Yeah, same. Mine is a mix of dumb memes posted to Ten Forward, dumb joke comments on random posts, and “both siders are fucking morons”-type comments. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Ookami38@sh.itjust.works 15 points 2 years ago (1 child) What about a more nuanced approach, such as both sides are shit. One side is clearly a bit less shit than the other, and so, I'll vote for that side, out of duress. I don't want to, I want to vote someone I actually believe in. I can't say many good things about the party I'm voting for, but I can't say ANYTHING good about their only viable opponent. And so, in an effort to keep the worst case scenario from happening, I'm going to vote for the only viable option. This is the core of the "both sides" argument to me. We're going to vote dem. But we cannot forget that neither of these parties are the ones we want. It's important to make that known. We are not voting for you because we like you, we're voting for you because we REALLY DON'T LIKE THE OTHER ONE. As long as we keep talking about that, as long as that very critical voice isn't silenced, we can slowly move the needle, until eventually one election we'll actually be able to elect the one we want. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago (1 child) As long as we keep talking about that, as long as that very critical voice isn’t silenced, we can slowly move the needle, until eventually one election we’ll actually be able to elect the one we want. Which is why centrists are so keen on silence from their critics to the left. And only ever the left. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NuclearDolphin@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 years ago The neolib centrists need the right to guarantee their power. The left is the only group threatening that. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago (1 child) As long as we keep talking about that, as long as that very critical voice isn’t silenced, we can slowly move the needle, until eventually one election we’ll actually be able to elect the one we want. Which is why centrists are so keen on silence from their critics to the left. And only ever the left. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NuclearDolphin@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 years ago The neolib centrists need the right to guarantee their power. The left is the only group threatening that. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] NuclearDolphin@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 years ago The neolib centrists need the right to guarantee their power. The left is the only group threatening that. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] samus12345@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago* (4 children) I think there are also misguided idealists who think it's more important that they feel good about not voting for the "genocide" guy while absolving themselves of any blame should his opponent win. They know a third party candidate can't win, but that's not as important as them being "right". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] barsquid@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (11 children) I believe the vast majority of these are privileged people whose family wealth will shield them from legislation they don't want to be subject to. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] samus12345@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago Or just white cis straight males, who will be protected from much of it as well. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (10 replies) load more comments (3 replies)
[–] barsquid@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (11 children) I believe the vast majority of these are privileged people whose family wealth will shield them from legislation they don't want to be subject to. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] samus12345@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago Or just white cis straight males, who will be protected from much of it as well. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (10 replies)
[–] samus12345@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago Or just white cis straight males, who will be protected from much of it as well. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] jumjummy@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (2 children) Amen! I feel like my post history is 90% calling out these bullshit accounts, and 10% random other non-political stuff. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] JimSamtanko@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago That’s almost all I do here. These people should be outed for what they are. permalink fedilink source parent [–] elliot_crane@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago Yeah, same. Mine is a mix of dumb memes posted to Ten Forward, dumb joke comments on random posts, and “both siders are fucking morons”-type comments. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] JimSamtanko@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago That’s almost all I do here. These people should be outed for what they are. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] elliot_crane@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago Yeah, same. Mine is a mix of dumb memes posted to Ten Forward, dumb joke comments on random posts, and “both siders are fucking morons”-type comments. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Ookami38@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 years ago To be entirely fair, the Republican party does a good job of criticizing themselves. Consider that a lot of the discourse you're seeing is from people who already believe the democratic party is the lesser of the two evils they're probably going to vote for them regardless. If you're engaging in a conversation with someone else, whose only tangible difference between the two of you is that one of you believes Dems are a-okay, and one believes that both parties are shit, the only real talking points they have are what the Dems do that aren't great. Obviously I don't think this is every case, but I know that if I wasn't already primed to have THIS argument, that'd probably be the route it'd take. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Honytawk@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 years ago (2 children) That is why every time someone brings up Genocide Joe, I bring up Turbo Genocide Donny permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] VictoriaAScharleau@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) literally whataboutism permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Theprogressivist@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (8 children) It's not, though. Nice try. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments load more comments (8 replies) [–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 years ago Needs more alliteration permalink fedilink source parent
[–] VictoriaAScharleau@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) literally whataboutism permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Theprogressivist@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (8 children) It's not, though. Nice try. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments load more comments (8 replies)
[–] Theprogressivist@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (8 children) It's not, though. Nice try. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments load more comments (8 replies)
[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 years ago Needs more alliteration permalink fedilink source parent
[–] NuclearDolphin@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Biden is the fucking commander in chief. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Congress exists as a coequal branch of the government and is who actually makes laws. The president can only exercise policies to execute those laws. This is elementary school civics in the US. Being commander in chief doesn't mean Biden can change funding and laws on a whim. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NuclearDolphin@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago The president can only exercise policies to execute those laws. From: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2023/02/23/memorandum-on-united-states-conventional-arms-transfer-policy/ If the United States determines at any time that a transfer is no longer in accordance with United States foreign policy objectives, national security goals, or legal obligations, the United States may cease the transfer of or future support for a transferred defense article or service. Biden could act unilaterally here. This is elementary school civics in the US. Yes, and he needs a declaration of war to go to war. 🙄 Just because your education ended with an elementary school reading of the constitution, doesn't mean that's how the country operates in practice. "Checks and balances" exist in name only. Sure the supreme court or congress could strike down new social programs, but war and spy powers exist independently from the legislative and judicial branches. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Congress exists as a coequal branch of the government and is who actually makes laws. The president can only exercise policies to execute those laws. This is elementary school civics in the US. Being commander in chief doesn't mean Biden can change funding and laws on a whim. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NuclearDolphin@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago The president can only exercise policies to execute those laws. From: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2023/02/23/memorandum-on-united-states-conventional-arms-transfer-policy/ If the United States determines at any time that a transfer is no longer in accordance with United States foreign policy objectives, national security goals, or legal obligations, the United States may cease the transfer of or future support for a transferred defense article or service. Biden could act unilaterally here. This is elementary school civics in the US. Yes, and he needs a declaration of war to go to war. 🙄 Just because your education ended with an elementary school reading of the constitution, doesn't mean that's how the country operates in practice. "Checks and balances" exist in name only. Sure the supreme court or congress could strike down new social programs, but war and spy powers exist independently from the legislative and judicial branches. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] NuclearDolphin@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago The president can only exercise policies to execute those laws. From: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2023/02/23/memorandum-on-united-states-conventional-arms-transfer-policy/ If the United States determines at any time that a transfer is no longer in accordance with United States foreign policy objectives, national security goals, or legal obligations, the United States may cease the transfer of or future support for a transferred defense article or service. Biden could act unilaterally here. This is elementary school civics in the US. Yes, and he needs a declaration of war to go to war. 🙄 Just because your education ended with an elementary school reading of the constitution, doesn't mean that's how the country operates in practice. "Checks and balances" exist in name only. Sure the supreme court or congress could strike down new social programs, but war and spy powers exist independently from the legislative and judicial branches. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] anticolonialist@lemmy.cafe 1 point 2 years ago Republicans don't pretend to care they wear their bigotry on their shoulder, Democrats are covert in their bigotry and their racism that's why they are often called out for it permalink fedilink source parent
[–] barsquid@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I've noticed they will have a little tirade if you ask them what is the logical consistency that they support China despite being "against" Gaza genocide in a way that means they couldn't possibly vote for harm reduction. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VictoriaAScharleau@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) voting is not a harm reduction strategy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] barsquid@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) It is if you think women losing access to healthcare or Ukrainians being massacred is harm. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VictoriaAScharleau@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) voting isn't a harm reduction strategy. a harm reduction strategy would be recognizing those bad things are going to happen and helping people mitigate the fallout. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] barsquid@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Yes, by voting for the party that isn't saying we should have the National Guard brutalize protesters, that protesters should be deported, and that Israel would be justified in nuking Gaza. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VictoriaAScharleau@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) you are ignoring what harm reduction means and pretending voting fits the definition of this specific jargon. it does not, and claiming it does actually impedes the educational work that harm reductionists need to do to advance their strategies. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] barsquid@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Nah, none of that is correct. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VictoriaAScharleau@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) saying something doesn't make it true. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] barsquid@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) I know. From what I have seen of your comments. None of them were correct nor in good faith. Excepting this one, which was correct but not in good faith. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VictoriaAScharleau@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago None of them were correct nor in good faith this just not true. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] VictoriaAScharleau@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) voting is not a harm reduction strategy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] barsquid@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) It is if you think women losing access to healthcare or Ukrainians being massacred is harm. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VictoriaAScharleau@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) voting isn't a harm reduction strategy. a harm reduction strategy would be recognizing those bad things are going to happen and helping people mitigate the fallout. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] barsquid@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Yes, by voting for the party that isn't saying we should have the National Guard brutalize protesters, that protesters should be deported, and that Israel would be justified in nuking Gaza. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VictoriaAScharleau@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) you are ignoring what harm reduction means and pretending voting fits the definition of this specific jargon. it does not, and claiming it does actually impedes the educational work that harm reductionists need to do to advance their strategies. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] barsquid@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Nah, none of that is correct. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VictoriaAScharleau@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) saying something doesn't make it true. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] barsquid@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) I know. From what I have seen of your comments. None of them were correct nor in good faith. Excepting this one, which was correct but not in good faith. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VictoriaAScharleau@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago None of them were correct nor in good faith this just not true. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] barsquid@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) It is if you think women losing access to healthcare or Ukrainians being massacred is harm. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VictoriaAScharleau@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) voting isn't a harm reduction strategy. a harm reduction strategy would be recognizing those bad things are going to happen and helping people mitigate the fallout. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] barsquid@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Yes, by voting for the party that isn't saying we should have the National Guard brutalize protesters, that protesters should be deported, and that Israel would be justified in nuking Gaza. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VictoriaAScharleau@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) you are ignoring what harm reduction means and pretending voting fits the definition of this specific jargon. it does not, and claiming it does actually impedes the educational work that harm reductionists need to do to advance their strategies. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] barsquid@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Nah, none of that is correct. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VictoriaAScharleau@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) saying something doesn't make it true. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] barsquid@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) I know. From what I have seen of your comments. None of them were correct nor in good faith. Excepting this one, which was correct but not in good faith. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VictoriaAScharleau@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago None of them were correct nor in good faith this just not true. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] VictoriaAScharleau@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) voting isn't a harm reduction strategy. a harm reduction strategy would be recognizing those bad things are going to happen and helping people mitigate the fallout. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] barsquid@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Yes, by voting for the party that isn't saying we should have the National Guard brutalize protesters, that protesters should be deported, and that Israel would be justified in nuking Gaza. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VictoriaAScharleau@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) you are ignoring what harm reduction means and pretending voting fits the definition of this specific jargon. it does not, and claiming it does actually impedes the educational work that harm reductionists need to do to advance their strategies. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] barsquid@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Nah, none of that is correct. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VictoriaAScharleau@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) saying something doesn't make it true. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] barsquid@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) I know. From what I have seen of your comments. None of them were correct nor in good faith. Excepting this one, which was correct but not in good faith. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VictoriaAScharleau@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago None of them were correct nor in good faith this just not true. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] barsquid@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Yes, by voting for the party that isn't saying we should have the National Guard brutalize protesters, that protesters should be deported, and that Israel would be justified in nuking Gaza. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VictoriaAScharleau@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) you are ignoring what harm reduction means and pretending voting fits the definition of this specific jargon. it does not, and claiming it does actually impedes the educational work that harm reductionists need to do to advance their strategies. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] barsquid@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Nah, none of that is correct. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VictoriaAScharleau@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) saying something doesn't make it true. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] barsquid@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) I know. From what I have seen of your comments. None of them were correct nor in good faith. Excepting this one, which was correct but not in good faith. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VictoriaAScharleau@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago None of them were correct nor in good faith this just not true. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] VictoriaAScharleau@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) you are ignoring what harm reduction means and pretending voting fits the definition of this specific jargon. it does not, and claiming it does actually impedes the educational work that harm reductionists need to do to advance their strategies. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] barsquid@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Nah, none of that is correct. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VictoriaAScharleau@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) saying something doesn't make it true. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] barsquid@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) I know. From what I have seen of your comments. None of them were correct nor in good faith. Excepting this one, which was correct but not in good faith. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VictoriaAScharleau@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago None of them were correct nor in good faith this just not true. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] barsquid@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Nah, none of that is correct. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VictoriaAScharleau@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) saying something doesn't make it true. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] barsquid@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) I know. From what I have seen of your comments. None of them were correct nor in good faith. Excepting this one, which was correct but not in good faith. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VictoriaAScharleau@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago None of them were correct nor in good faith this just not true. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] VictoriaAScharleau@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) saying something doesn't make it true. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] barsquid@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) I know. From what I have seen of your comments. None of them were correct nor in good faith. Excepting this one, which was correct but not in good faith. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VictoriaAScharleau@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago None of them were correct nor in good faith this just not true. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] barsquid@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) I know. From what I have seen of your comments. None of them were correct nor in good faith. Excepting this one, which was correct but not in good faith. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] VictoriaAScharleau@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago None of them were correct nor in good faith this just not true. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] VictoriaAScharleau@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago None of them were correct nor in good faith this just not true. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] JimSamtanko@lemm.ee -3 points 2 years ago (8 children) I’ve been pointing that out all the time. They’re never on any posts critical of Trump. Only anything about Biden. It it’s critical, they’re there to agree- if it’s positive, they’re there to shit all over it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments load more comments (8 replies)
