“Harm reduction” doesn’t mean reducing the current level of harm to a lower level, it means reducing the future increase of harm. Voting for harm reduction is literally the exact same thing as voting against harm acceleration. It is the same thing. The term comes from drug policy, where you recognize that people will harm themselves no matter what, so you focus on reducing that harm rather than trying ineffectively to eliminate it entirely.
Still though, voting as far left as can win in every local election is an excellent start. We’re not going to change anything by voting for 3rd party no-names in the general election. We’ll do it by building local representatives into Governors and members of Congress with track records that inspire confidence, and then pushing them nationally.
If it doesn’t reduce harm. It’s not harm reduction. Prevention perhaps. But reduction has a different meaning. Reduction means not only stopping new harm. But reducing existing as well. Something that even if we are being extremely generous to Democrats is something they struggle to even attempt to do.
Don’t get me wrong I’m 100% on board for the general message of the meme. Placing Perfection over achievable will get you the worst outcome every time. However voting itself can never be harm reduction. No matter how often you do it. That’s going to require community action, making these elected officials feel accountable and responsible for their actions.
That’s not what “harm reduction” means. It is an established term with an established meaning. Reinterpreting it does not change the established meaning of the full term. If the term was “harmful status reduction” or “harm reversal” you would have a point, but “harm” is an active verb. The term means what it means. I am using the term as it is defined.
And I agree, focus should be on achievable over perfect. And real action does extend beyond voting. But voting is still a useful tool, not the total extent of action, but a useful element of action. Third-party/non voters prioritize perfect over achievable, and in return get neither.
Harm is both a verb (to inflict damage) and a noun (the damage thus inflicted). I’m “Harm reduction” has a specific meaning which disambiguates the intent.
“Harm reduction” doesn’t mean reducing the current level of harm to a lower level, it means reducing the future increase of harm. Voting for harm reduction is literally the exact same thing as voting against harm acceleration. It is the same thing. The term comes from drug policy, where you recognize that people will harm themselves no matter what, so you focus on reducing that harm rather than trying ineffectively to eliminate it entirely.
Still though, voting as far left as can win in every local election is an excellent start. We’re not going to change anything by voting for 3rd party no-names in the general election. We’ll do it by building local representatives into Governors and members of Congress with track records that inspire confidence, and then pushing them nationally.
If it doesn’t reduce harm. It’s not harm reduction. Prevention perhaps. But reduction has a different meaning. Reduction means not only stopping new harm. But reducing existing as well. Something that even if we are being extremely generous to Democrats is something they struggle to even attempt to do.
Don’t get me wrong I’m 100% on board for the general message of the meme. Placing Perfection over achievable will get you the worst outcome every time. However voting itself can never be harm reduction. No matter how often you do it. That’s going to require community action, making these elected officials feel accountable and responsible for their actions.
That’s not what “harm reduction” means. It is an established term with an established meaning. Reinterpreting it does not change the established meaning of the full term. If the term was “harmful status reduction” or “harm reversal” you would have a point, but “harm” is an active verb. The term means what it means. I am using the term as it is defined.
And I agree, focus should be on achievable over perfect. And real action does extend beyond voting. But voting is still a useful tool, not the total extent of action, but a useful element of action. Third-party/non voters prioritize perfect over achievable, and in return get neither.
They’re using the literal definition of the words. How does that redefine anything?
I can see why you might think that!
Harm is both a verb (to inflict damage) and a noun (the damage thus inflicted). I’m “Harm reduction” has a specific meaning which disambiguates the intent.