you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    voting is not a harm reduction strategy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    It is if you think women losing access to healthcare or Ukrainians being massacred is harm.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Nah, none of that is correct.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    saying something doesn't make it true.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments