plspls_pls_ stop calling each other fascists or astroturfers unless you have a thorough understanding of the uncommitted movement and what u.s. primaries are. there is so much blatant misunderstanding and misinfo going on it’s bad.
edit: if any loser dares call for an uncommitted vote in the general election? i will kick them in the balls (gender neutral) (in minecraft)
i know you probably hear this a lot, but i encourage you not to do so. until we have ranked choice voting, voting for the democrat candidate in the general will always be a needed form of harm reduction, especially if you live in a swing state.
others are probably better at expressing this than i, so i’ll leave it at that. :)
No thanks.
They’re doing an awful job of harm reduction and I’m not waiting for fundamental systemic changes to the country’s election process to withhold support from the party that’s rug pulled me for 24 years.
The best time to stop supporting the democrats and put my energy elsewhere was 2000, the second best time is now.
I will also never vote for Joe Biden for any position again.
thanks for hearing me out, i see you definitely have thought this through so i won’t rag on you despite our disagreement.
No worries. You’re always welcome on the “democrats fuck off” side. There’s definitely somewhere here with your politics and idea of appropriate direct action.
don’t get me wrong, democrats can eat dirt the majority of the time 😭 bunch of war criminals and capitalist scum. but in the end, after doing organizing and grassroots stuff, when it comes down to the final say, i personally try to make the choice that will be the most pragmatically beneficial (or least harmful, as it tends to be) to my neighbors.
voting is not harm reduction.
i have heard this argument a couple times and honestly haven’t been swayed by it. let me know if i’ve been hearing the argument from the wrong sources but it’s such a tough position to defend when i know for a fact that each vote i make can have a direct influence on the livelihood of my neighbors.
harm reduction as a specific thing. The best example of it is needle exchanges and safe injection rooms for addicts. you recognize that the bad thing is happening, and you do what you can to mitigate the harm that comes from the bad thing. The bad thing is bad people being in power. what you can do to mitigate that is engaging in mutual aid and community organizing around issues that are affecting you locally. voting for a Democrat or Republican won’t stop the bad things from happening. The Democrats have brought us to the point where Trump is seen as reasonable by half the electorate. The Democrats have shared power with the Republicans for the past hundred years as fascism has taken over the government. voting for them doesn’t reduce the harm that they cause.
edit
voting for Democrats is like giving out free Suboxone and saying at least it’s not heroin. That’s not harm reduction. harm reduction is recognizing that the addicts are going to use the substance of their choice and making that as safe as possible.
these first sentences of yours follow perfectly into the following thesis:
There is room to hold both truths at once. If Trump had not won in 2016, the supreme court would have an entirely different makeup, we’d still have Roe v Wade, and there would be fewer women and doctors fearing legal persecution for taking medically necessary action in cases like ectopic pregnancy.. You recognize that someone bad was going to get elected in 2016, but only one of those rolled back basic women’s rights. Harm reduction. And that’s just one example of many. There is nothing about voting a handful of times a year that precludes you from also also organizing and participating in mutual aid.
The candidate that does the least harm would probably be Cornell West or Jill Stein. voting for the senator who put in place the conditions for roe v Wade to be turned over, the senator who confirmed some of those very same justices, to be president does not reduce harm. if you won’t take it from me maybe it’ll take it from this guy
https://www.indigenousaction.org/voting-is-not-harm-reduction-an-indigenous-perspective/
sounds like you should vote for cornell west or jill stein then :)
i had already read this article long before today and it still doesn’t give a compelling argument that voting can’t reduce harm, sorry.
harm reduction is a specific strategy, and voting is not harm reduction.
okay if you want to just call it a semantics thing that’s fair. i’ll keep doing it though because it reduces harm. :)