That's always the bright line I refuse to cross I will die on that hill. Voting for "harm reduction" is fine right up until the point someone fully admits they're voting for a "lesser evil." Like bro, you just voted for evil. IMO once you're actively voting for evil you are now perpetuating, not fighting against, the system.
As a personal example I don't care for either mayoral candidate where I live. But I don't hate either of them. So I picked the one that wasn't endorsed by the police union. But I hate both congressional candidates so I left that blank, even though one is objectively worse than the other.
Nothing riles up "lesser evil" liberals more than asking them if they would vote for Trump if the alternative were worse. Some have no problem with it and don't see any concern with that outcome.
I hated them all. They’re all “businessmen” or “entrepreneurs” of Bidenists (I live in a blue state). For me, “harm reduction” means you’re doing SOMETHING to mitigate the harm. Democrats don’t do anything and I don’t consider inaction harm reduction. But inaction will still give me a little breathing room compared to conservatives rushing to kill everyone
It’s the equivalent of standing at the front of titanic as it sinks. I’m waiting for the inevitable, but at least I won’t have to confront it for a little bit longer.
I hear that but don't exactly follow the analogy of voting for something you hate with standing around and waiting.
To me it's closer to someone kidnapping you with a gun asking you if you want to be shot in the face today or tomorrow. It's perfectly rational to choose tomorrow. But plenty of folks, myself included, would sooner just spit in their face than make that kind of "choice".
Sure if you pick it apart to break the analogy. I agree with choosing tomorrow. Most people would also try and get on a liferaft over just standing on the Titanic watching it sink (in reference to the analogy I was responding to).
Did you vote for anyone you hate?
That's always the bright line I refuse to cross I will die on that hill. Voting for "harm reduction" is fine right up until the point someone fully admits they're voting for a "lesser evil." Like bro, you just voted for evil. IMO once you're actively voting for evil you are now perpetuating, not fighting against, the system.
As a personal example I don't care for either mayoral candidate where I live. But I don't hate either of them. So I picked the one that wasn't endorsed by the police union. But I hate both congressional candidates so I left that blank, even though one is objectively worse than the other.
Nothing riles up "lesser evil" liberals more than asking them if they would vote for Trump if the alternative were worse. Some have no problem with it and don't see any concern with that outcome.
:xi-vote:
I hated them all. They’re all “businessmen” or “entrepreneurs” of Bidenists (I live in a blue state). For me, “harm reduction” means you’re doing SOMETHING to mitigate the harm. Democrats don’t do anything and I don’t consider inaction harm reduction. But inaction will still give me a little breathing room compared to conservatives rushing to kill everyone
It’s the equivalent of standing at the front of titanic as it sinks. I’m waiting for the inevitable, but at least I won’t have to confront it for a little bit longer.
I hear that but don't exactly follow the analogy of voting for something you hate with standing around and waiting.
To me it's closer to someone kidnapping you with a gun asking you if you want to be shot in the face today or tomorrow. It's perfectly rational to choose tomorrow. But plenty of folks, myself included, would sooner just spit in their face than make that kind of "choice".
most people would pick tomorrow and try to escape or kill their captor
Sure if you pick it apart to break the analogy. I agree with choosing tomorrow. Most people would also try and get on a liferaft over just standing on the Titanic watching it sink (in reference to the analogy I was responding to).