I disagree with the entire framing of harm reduction as a valid reason to vote for the lesser evil in elections. I think it’s absurd and horribly wrong for exactly the reasons you stated. 1.5M is actually less than 3M, but that doesn’t mean it’s harm reduction.
Harm reduction doesn’t always mean harm. It does eventually mean that things that do nothing are better than harm, and things that do more good are better than less good. But right now, harm is being caused no matter how you choose. So if you are forced to pick, you should pick less. Every time.
I think that is a really gross thing to say from someone who didn’t pay attention to the ongoing rapes of children in ICE concentration camps. I think that’s a gross thing to say to the militarized presence of ICE kidnapping people as they left their court hearings to be here. I think that’s a gross thing to say to the people attacked by ICE for protecting their neighbors. I think that’s a gross thing to say to the people who got married and had to pick up their partner’s green card because they were arresting them and shipping them all over the country.
To say that it’s a smaller number is insane
So… all this is just what? Partisanism? You can’t extend this to prison system and police killings? You can’t extend this to the bombing and total destruction of sovereign nations? You can’t extend this to shipping arms to genocidal regimes and protecting them in the UN? It’s only valid harm reduction if you’re voting for Democrats regardless of the active harm they do?
I mean, do you not see the contradiction in your own words here?
Like, it’s sort of like telling me to pick between 1000 thefts being committed vs 100 murders, and, like, yeah, obviously I’ll take 1000 thefts over the murders. I don’t want either, but I have two fucking choices.
It’s nothing like this. You’re literally doing the thing you said shouldn’t be done. You think that because Trump made it visible, it’s worse, and because Obama’s deportations were less visible, they’re better. That’s essentially saying that the deciding factor is whether or not white people are made uncomfortable by it. Literally, you’re saying Obama deporting twice as much people is still LESS BAD than Trump deporting half as many because we all have to see it happening on the streets instead of it happening quietly through the prison-industrial complex.
You just can’t seem to choose whether it’s OK to quantify harm and advocate for harm reduction on that basis or whether harm is qualitative and cannot be reduced to simple numerical comparison.
Which is it: it’s disgusting to the tell the victims of sexual violence under Obama and Biden that Trump is presiding over more of it and that’s why it’s OK to vote for Ds, or it’s virtuous to vote lesser evil and harm reduction on a quantitative basis?
Did Biden prosecute the perpetrators of sexual violence against detained immigrants? Did he address the harm? Or did he ignore the harm?
It sounds to me like you are deeply attached to the idea that Democrats are NOT actively participating in the system and that the Republicans are. To me, the evidence is clear that this is a Good Cop / Bad Cop situation and they both work for the same department and you’re just being duped by the routine.
I disagree with the entire framing of harm reduction as a valid reason to vote for the lesser evil in elections. I think it’s absurd and horribly wrong for exactly the reasons you stated. 1.5M is actually less than 3M, but that doesn’t mean it’s harm reduction.
Harm reduction doesn’t always mean harm. It does eventually mean that things that do nothing are better than harm, and things that do more good are better than less good. But right now, harm is being caused no matter how you choose. So if you are forced to pick, you should pick less. Every time.
So… all this is just what? Partisanism? You can’t extend this to prison system and police killings? You can’t extend this to the bombing and total destruction of sovereign nations? You can’t extend this to shipping arms to genocidal regimes and protecting them in the UN? It’s only valid harm reduction if you’re voting for Democrats regardless of the active harm they do?
I mean, do you not see the contradiction in your own words here?
Removed by mod
It’s nothing like this. You’re literally doing the thing you said shouldn’t be done. You think that because Trump made it visible, it’s worse, and because Obama’s deportations were less visible, they’re better. That’s essentially saying that the deciding factor is whether or not white people are made uncomfortable by it. Literally, you’re saying Obama deporting twice as much people is still LESS BAD than Trump deporting half as many because we all have to see it happening on the streets instead of it happening quietly through the prison-industrial complex.
I think that’s disgusting, quite frankly.
Removed by mod
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10408271/
First line
Removed by mod
You just can’t seem to choose whether it’s OK to quantify harm and advocate for harm reduction on that basis or whether harm is qualitative and cannot be reduced to simple numerical comparison.
Which is it: it’s disgusting to the tell the victims of sexual violence under Obama and Biden that Trump is presiding over more of it and that’s why it’s OK to vote for Ds, or it’s virtuous to vote lesser evil and harm reduction on a quantitative basis?
Did Biden prosecute the perpetrators of sexual violence against detained immigrants? Did he address the harm? Or did he ignore the harm?
It sounds to me like you are deeply attached to the idea that Democrats are NOT actively participating in the system and that the Republicans are. To me, the evidence is clear that this is a Good Cop / Bad Cop situation and they both work for the same department and you’re just being duped by the routine.