1425
To those in countries where democracy might last another election - harm reduction is not optional
(lemmy.world)
this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2025
1425 points (96.0% liked)
Political Memes
8780 readers
2587 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
And that's the problem. Letting them use the term "harm reduction" lets them categorize it as "harm", therefore they won't vote for it. Because they see it as harm. Because they see it as all on the same side of harm (both sides harm/both sides same). There's longer explanations in my other replies.
Convince them that Dems help.
Okay, but there are three problems with that approach:
That is even more starkly against their worldview than "Dems do less harm", which, as responses in this fucking thread show, they are already reluctant to accept even outside of the context of harm reduction.
That 'Dems help' has to necessarily point towards specific issues of policy, and policy tends to be much more contentious as to whether any given policy is actually helpful in the long run or just less-bad than the alternative.
The fucking Dems themselves.
I thought of a different way to put this. It's like that meme where two people look at the same things and see different things.
You see harm reduction. You see that as a reason to vote for Dems.
They see harm reduction. They see that as a reason to not vote for Dems. Because to them they see harm reduction, is harm lite, is harm, and they will not vote for harm.
I say don't fall for their framing of calling it harm reduction.
Ok 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 fall for their trick and don't let them fall into that trap of what's basically both sides same.
If you let them use the term harm reduction, that lets them categorize it as harm. That's what they want to do. They want to categorize it as harm, just harm lite. Once the categorize it as harm in any way, they won't vote for it. That's why they want to categorize it as harm lite. Don't let them.
I think this is pretty similar as 1. They want to put everything as "harm less" instead of help. Again so they can categorize it as harm, and thus not vote for it. Again, don't let them categorize it as "harm less".
Point out that Dems can't do anything without all 3 houses. And they've had all 3 houses for only 6 years out of the last 44 years. 2 years under each of Bill Clinton, Obama, and Biden.