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.
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.