How are we at a point in time where adults need this explained to them…
…yeah, f*ck off, plutocrat…
The problem with this is that the choice isn’t cliff or ice cream. The choice is the cliff in front of us or the cliff around the corner.
20 people voted to drive over the cliff. 30 people voted to fucking gun it and send that shit straight into the abyss. 1 person voted for ice cream but the cliff voters beat him to death. 50 people didn’t vote
Not really
One one hand harm reduction is nice, but on the other I have seen exactly nothing from Western politics these past few years to convince me that any harm is being reduced. The principle of harm reduction requires serious, productive action (so not canvassing and voter drives, for the love of God stop doing voter drives) to be taken during the period when the harm is reduced to push democracy off its collision course with fascism. When progressives don’t take that serious action—or worse, actively shut down said action—they’re simply kicking the can down the road, turning harm “reduction” from a credible strategy to a farce. I don’t disagree with the principle, but where’s the action necessary for any of this to make sense? Because as far as I can see, harm reduction in America was the farce version.
One one hand harm reduction is nice, but on the other I have seen exactly nothing from Western politics these past few years to convince me that any harm is being reduced.
For fuck’s sake, have you not looked around to see what’s happened these past six fucking months?
The principle of harm reduction requires serious, productive action (so not canvassing and voter drives, for the love of God stop doing voter drives)
“Stop performing one of the core functions of harm reduction that attempts to reduce harm!”
…
to be taken during the period when the harm is reduced to push democracy off its collision course with fascism.
Pointed out below. But I guess it’s not fast enough for your tastes, so let’s do nothing and usher in the fascists to power instead. After all, politics are like a magical pendulum, where one side winning means the other side must get an equivalent win eventually!
When progressives don’t take that serious action—or worse, actively shut down said action—
When the fuck are progressives shutting down serious action?
they’re simply kicking the can down the road, turning harm “reduction” from a credible strategy to a farce.
You’re absolutely right. In the wise words of a political party canvassing for seemingly everything a good fucking third of the ‘left’ commenters here have come to adore, we’re all going to die someday. So why not as soon as possible?
Critical support for harm acceleration! Fuck those minorities anyway.
I don’t disagree with the principle, but where’s the action necessary for any of this to make sense? Because as far as I can see, harm reduction in America was the farce version.
“We’ve managed to make ‘socialism’ into an acceptable word in politics and almost got a democratic socialist into a major party’s nomination twice in the past ten years, in a country which has been immensely hostile to any socialist ideas for at least 70 years, and in an intensified period of anti-government right-wing insanity since 1980.”
“Clearly you haven’t been making any progress, shitlib! Time to abandon all levers of power to the fascists.”
For fuck’s sake, have you not looked around to see what’s happened these past six fucking months?
I have, and I know that without the serious action I was talking about it was a question of whether Alligator Alcatraz would’ve been opened in 2025 or 2029, with maybe a small chance of 2033. There was nothing unique about 2025 that made it the ideal timing for a fascist takeover.
“Stop performing one of the core functions of harm reduction that attempts to reduce harm!”
Well as long as all or most of your energy is going to harm reduction you’ll only ever end up with fascism.
Pointed out below. But I guess it’s not fast enough for your tastes, so let’s do nothing and usher in the fascists to power instead. After all, politics are like a magical pendulum, where one side winning means the other side must get an equivalent win eventually!
Oh I’m under no illusion that fascists winning would (or, well, will given that they’ve pretty much already won) bring about a socialist revolution or any of that stuff.
When the fuck are progressives shutting down serious action?
Remember Uncommited? Palestine protests? Calls for Biden to step down? I have seen all three get called Russian psy-ops by supposedly left-leaning people on Lemmy. You probably know better than me whether that’s a representative sample of American politics, but holy hell for a time you couldn’t say anything bad about Biden without getting showered with downvotes around here. This sort of cannibalism was one of the many forms of complicity that allowed the march to fascism to proceed unimpeded.
You’re absolutely right. In the wise words of a political party canvassing for seemingly everything a good fucking third of the ‘left’ commenters here have come to adore, we’re all going to die someday. So why not as soon as possible?
I mean, in this case we’re more talking about whether it’s worth it to pay through the nose for life support when you already know what you have is terminal.
“We’ve managed to make ‘socialism’ into an acceptable word in politics and almost got a democratic socialist into a major party’s nomination twice in the past ten years, in a country which has been immensely hostile to any socialist ideas for at least 70 years, and in an intensified period of anti-government right-wing insanity since 1980.”
That would be nice-ish progress in saner times, and a few decades of it and you might’ve had a shot at sane government (if the establishment didn’t manage to tank the whole affair, anyway), but like what makes you think you ever had that kind of time? The clock was already ticking with Bush, really got going with Obama and Trump 1 pretty much sealed the deal. When I say fascism was inevitable I don’t mean it was coming within decades; I mean America was going to be fascist by 2033. Much more direct action was needed to prevent fascism within that timeframe. So with that in mind,
But I guess it’s not fast enough for your tastes
No, it’s not fast enough for the reality on the ground.
This is just accelerationism. Which like ok but let’s call it what it is and admit that it’s a dangerous idea with a horrible and immediate human cost.
It’s not accelerationism. Accelerationism presumes that a good result will follow the bad one. This is more “Fascism is going to come, and it’s not going to usher in a socialist revolution, so just let it come as quick as it wants to.”
What? No. Accelerationism would be “we should vote for fascists/not vote at all,” which is not at all what I’m saying here. My point is that the left’s strategy needs to radically change if it wants to have a hope of stopping fascism. To repeat, I want fascism to be stopped here; my argument is that the way the left has been attempting to do so is woefully inadequate.
My point is that the left’s strategy needs to radically change if it wants to have a hope of stopping fascism.
Cool, so, the thinking is to buy yourself enough time to convince the left to radically change?
No? “We haven’t changed enough yet for my tastes, so this is all pointless”?
To repeat, I want fascism to be stopped here; my argument is that the way the left has been attempting to do so is woefully inadequate.
And that you see no point in buying more time, don’t forget, calling it a ‘farce’ at first, and then, after conceding that there was significant progress, dismissing it as ‘not fast enough’ to be worth considering.
There’s a good fucking chance that I’m a dead man walking. The projections for additional deaths caused directly by this administration are in the millions. Quite literally every fucking left-wing cause in this country has been set back immensely by this fascist victory, and fascists internationally significantly strengthened. And yet there are people here, people like you, who aren’t stupid but seem quite content to bang a very stupid drum, insisting that preventing this would not have been all that big an issue - because we’re all going to
diebecome fascist in the end anyway, so what does it matter if it’s four years from now or today?I fucking take my meds every day not because I think I’ll gain immortality if I keep doing it, I do it because it staves off death one more day at time. Despite the fact that it doesn’t cure the underlying problem of chronic illness/mortality.
So yeah, I’m a little fucking pissed whenever this comes up.
I agree people should have voted kamala to prevent what’s happening now…
But for progression now, nothing about shaming the voters disenfranchised by the Democrats is worthwhile.
The Democrats were never entitled to any votes, they shouldn’t have been so conceited as to tank their own popularity with conceit in the interest of capital.
The ones who voted for trump are to blame in the immediate for sure, what’s happening right now in the US is tragic. But to be so myopic as to pretend that’s all that matters is foolish.
The Democrats were never entitled to any votes,
Here we go again. Not voting for the Dems was fine, because Dems aren’t ‘entitled’ to anyone’s vote. So glad people chose to punish the Dems at the expensive of the lives of millions of actual human beings. But surely, the Dems will learn not to act entitled after THIS defeat. I mean, it didn’t work the last fifty fucking times, but THIS time, they’ll learn their lesson, and all those people murdered by the fascist ghouls that abstainers let into power will at least have their deaths be for a worthy cause!
Yes, the Dems’ll learn any day now… if only we let a few million more minorities get murdered, they’ll surely learn…
I have, and I know that without the serious action I was talking about it was a question of whether Alligator Alcatraz would’ve been opened in 2025 or 2029, with maybe a small chance of 2033. There was nothing unique about 2025 that made it the ideal timing for a fascist takeover.
Jesus fucking Christ. Do you know nothing of the history of this fucking country?
Oh, what am I saying? History is terribly inconvenient.
Well as long as all or most of your energy is going to harm reduction you’ll only ever end up with fascism.
Therefore, power should be handed over to the fascists as quick as possible. Great.
Oh I’m under no illusion that fascists winning would (or, well, will given that they’ve pretty much already won) bring about a socialist revolution or any of that stuff.
So your opposition to harm reduction is… what? The belief that getting fascism sooner is Good, Actually?
Remember Uncommited? Palestine protests? Calls for Biden to step down? I have seen all three get called Russian psy-ops by supposedly left-leaning people on Lemmy.
All three of those were championed primarily by progressives.
You probably know better than me whether that’s a representative sample of American politics, but holy hell for a time you couldn’t say anything bad about Biden without getting showered with downvotes around here.
Golly gee, I wonder why people might be hostile towards beating the “BIDEN BAD” drum during the period of 2024 when he was the only non-fascist candidate with a serious chance of winning the 2024 election.
It must be because we’re secretly shitlibs. It’s that deeply engrained desire to not lose an election to a fascist that gives us away - don’t we know that both sides are basically fascists anyway?
In any case, the ‘Big, Beautiful Bill’ has passed, so I get to have my healthcare stripped away and vomit blood on the floor until I bleed out, so thanks for your unrelenting support for anti-anti-fascism for being insufficiently pure! If you want, I’ll send you a selfie once the black-flecked puke starts coming up, so you have a nice little souvenir to celebrate with.
Maybe you can find another country to asspat accelerationists in until the fascists win, and get a few more selfies of that sort. Then you’ll REALLY be owning the libs!
This sort of cannibalism was one of the many forms of complicity that allowed the march to fascism to proceed unimpeded.
… the sort of cannibalism of… trying to push the necessity of a united front against a literal and outright fascist who was projected to win nearly half the vote?
If that’s cannibalism, I shudder to think what you consider attacking the anti-fascist coalition candidate as.
I mean, in this case we’re more talking about whether it’s worth it to pay through the nose for life support when you already know what you have is terminal.
“You see, if we operate under the axiom that our fate is inevitable, our fate is inevitable.”
Wow, I’m just blown away by the complexity of that analysis. I guess we’re all going to die, though, so we might as well hand over all power to the fascists as soon as we can.
The fuck are you ‘saving’ that money for, anyway, if the end result is that you’re going to die? Pure thrift? Want to be buried with it?
That would be nice-ish progress in saner times, and a few decades of it and you might’ve had a shot at sane government (if the establishment didn’t manage to tank the whole affair, anyway), but like what makes you think you ever had that kind of time? The clock was already ticking with Bush, really got going with Obama and Trump 1 pretty much sealed the deal. When I say fascism was inevitable I don’t mean it was coming within decades; I mean America was going to be fascist by 2033. Much more direct action was needed to prevent fascism within that timeframe.
If you were alive in 1950, you’d be saying the American Auschwitz was going to open by 1960 or 1962 anyway, so harm reduction was pointless. We were on the inevitable path to fascism within a decade, and there was nothing that could be done about it so long as the SHITLIBS were still in power.
No, it’s not fast enough for the reality on the ground.
“It’s not fast enough, so stop, give up, and die”
Therefore, power should be handed over to the fascists as quick as possible. Great.
Again, that is literally not what I’m saying, and at this point you seem to be arguing with a strawman. I’m not anti-harm reduction; I simply believe that the efficacy of harm reduction is predicated on effective action that simply does not exist at present. What I’m calling for is for the left to shift gears to direct action to coerce the system into getting its shit in order. Also vote for the less shitty candidate, but that shouldn’t be where you put all or even most of your energy, because losing that particular bet is a mathematical certainty.
So your opposition to harm reduction is… what?
See above.
All three of those were championed primarily by progressives.
Yes, there’s a reason I called it cannibalism.
Golly gee, I wonder why people might be hostile towards beating the “BIDEN BAD” drum during the period of 2024 when he was the only non-fascist candidate with a serious chance of winning the 2024 election.
See? This is exactly what I’m talking about. Biden 2024 wasn’t an outlier in an otherwise sane political climate; that shit was the new post-2016 normal. Any credible strategy needed to provide a path to victory through that new normal within a decade (more realistically five years, but eh) without letting fascists win in the meantime. So-called harm reduction focuses so much on the latter that it does nothing substantial to address the former.
If you want, I’ll send you a selfie once the black-flecked puke starts coming up, so you have a nice little souvenir to celebrate with.
Looking forward to it ;).
If you were alive in 1950, you’d be saying the American Auschwitz was going to open by 1960 or 1962 anyway, so harm reduction was pointless.
American Hitler wasn’t winning elections in 1950 so… no?
there was nothing that could be done about it so long as the SHITLIBS were still in power.
Okay it’s starting to feel like you’re scanning my responses for keywords rather than actually reading what I’m saying.
Again, that is literally not what I’m saying, and at this point you seem to be arguing with a strawman. I’m not anti-harm reduction; I simply believe that the efficacy of harm reduction is predicated on effective action that simply does not exist at present.
Except your entire argument here is positing that harm reduction is worthless because it doesn’t serve the long-term goals you see as necessary fast enough.
What I’m calling for is for the left to shift gears to direct action to coerce the system into getting its shit in order.
And reminding everyone that harm reduction under current circumstances is pointless, don’t forget.
Also vote for the less shitty candidate, but that shouldn’t be where you put all or even most of your energy, because losing that particular bet is a mathematical certainty.
… losing elections is a mathematical certainty?
Yes, there’s a reason I called it cannibalism.
Because… progressives made campaigns, and largely, simultaneously, supported the Dem candidate…?
See? This is exactly what I’m talking about. Biden 2024 wasn’t an outlier in an otherwise sane political climate; that shit was the new post-2016 normal.
Okay? What the ever-loving fuck does that have to do with ensuring Biden in 2024 didn’t lose, because his opponent was a literal fascist?
“He wasn’t giving us a long-term strategy for victory, so fuck your anti-fascist coalition!”
This is the doomer equivalent of accelerationism.
Any credible strategy needed to provide a path to victory through that new normal within a decade (more realistically five years, but eh) without letting fascists win in the meantime. So-called harm reduction focuses so much on the latter that it does nothing substantial to address the former.
“I wonder why these people are so worried about not dying of thirst today??? Don’t they know that they haven’t fixed the problems in water supply over the next decade???”
If only we worried less about dying of thirst today. Such short-term thinking!
Looking forward to it ;).
Unsurprising. The lives of marginalized groups don’t matter if they’re insufficiently ideologically pure. I guess I was too interested in not dying because of a fuckwad fascist administration.
American Hitler wasn’t winning elections in 1950 so… no?
Oh, sorry, so you prefer 1896 or 1912 or 1968 or 1980 for your narrative of “America was going to fall forever to fascism in ten years, and there’s nothing these silly ‘harm reducers’ can do about it”?
Okay it’s starting to feel like you’re scanning my responses for keywords rather than actually reading what I’m saying.
Your entire fucking point is predicated on the idea that fascism is inevitable because change wasn’t happening fast enough, so harm reduction was functional worthless to pursue. I am absolutely reading what you’re saying; the problem is you aren’t following the logical conclusions of what you yourself are saying.
Nine people get on a bus, but it is decided that only votes cast from the 3 people sitting at the front of the bus will get to decide the direction.
Why shouldn’t people trapped at the back of the bus with no sway over the vote express their opposition to the system itself?
I really don’t understand the issue people have with individuals who are in safe red or blue states voting in protest
I really don’t understand the issue people have with individuals who are in safe red or blue states voting in protest
safe is not safe… in australia this most recent election we had a lot of “safe” conservative seats switch (🥳)
I really don’t understand the issue people have with individuals who are in safe red or blue states voting in protest
It’s less problematic, but still not great. Elections maintain legitimacy on the perception of democracy - the more the democratic result is at variance with the results of the system, the greater the ‘winning’ candidate is undermined. A clear vote against the fascist discourages cooperation from various fence-sitting ghouls who, nonetheless, retain significant power to hinder the incoming administration. A significant enough disconnect between the democratic result and the result of the system can, and historically has in other countries, led to mass unrest and the overthrow of ‘illegitimate’ victors, though in the US the difference between winner and loser in this area has never been above statistical noise.
By contrast, a victory of the plurality of the vote is seen as legitimizing, encouraging careerist middle-of-the-road ghouls, both politicians and bureaucrats, to cooperate with and enable the regime to a greater degree.
Put less verbosely:
It’s best to deny fascists victory. However, if the circumstances (of the nation or your vote specifically) do not allow for that, it’s best to deny fascists the perception of a democratic mandate.
Protest voting in a safe state is better than non-voting, but it still has a negative effect in the case of a fascist victory.
I really don’t understand the issue people have with individuals who are in safe red or blue states voting in protest
Because if all the individuals who think they’re in safe zones actually got out and voted seriously instead of protest voting or abstaining, THERE WOULD NOT BE ANY SAFE RED AREAS.
Key sentence in that article: “The findings suggest that Mr. Trump’s brand of conservative populism once again turned politics-as-usual upside down”
As in: people don’t fucking want status quo.
Democrats: if we just status quo harder we’ll attract the unicorn moderates and win!
/Wrist
For that to actually for real happen, there would have to be a campaign and a candidate to convince enough people to do that. “We’re the harm reduction option” clearly isn’t that campaign.
Removed by mod
You would eventually “drive off a cliff” with either party, as they will softlock you into never having better choices, and the overton window will keep moving to the right. The only possibility out is to vote third party.
A vote is not an endorsement, it’s a move.
Removed by mod
If you don’t have ranked choice voting you do not live in a democracy
Til that only Australians and the Irish live in democracy. It’s used in other places, ofc, but on smaller scales.
Not to say I’m against it or anything, I’m all for it, but your statement is a bit exaggerated.
Many countries claim to be democracies but if the available choices are only x, y or z. The people are not truly expressing their will, 30% could like x, 30% could like y, they could all hate z but z gets elected because 40% like z.
That’s not democracy.
Ranked choice means it’s easier for voters, but when it’s not available voters are capable of understanding the scenario you describe and voting accordingly.
Many times I haven’t voted for my preferred candidate and instead voted for the candidate most likely to defeat the candidate I couldn’t stomach getting into power. Here in Canada we call it voting strategically and if you look at the polling data it definitely happened last election (and in many others in the past).
I’d like to have ranked choice, but it’s insane to say it’s not a democracy without it. But multiple rounds of voting (like France has) is better than ranked choice as it gives a clear choice to voters in the final round. But having multiple voting rounds is expensive and people might prefer to just vote once and have it done with, so ranked choice may be preferable for many people.
Dunno, the most recent example was Romania. In the first round, 40% voted for the far right cunt and all the others had 20% or less. In the second round where there were only 2 candidates left, Nicușor Dan won with 53% and the far right cunt got 46%. So… Z doesn’t always win.
It’s not bad to have high standards, as long as they don’t get in the way of making things better
…how’s that working out for australia?..legitmate question; last i heard they were nearly as fascist as we are stateside…
Wow. Really? Preferential voting should absolutely be more common.
Was just as surprised as you are. And yeah, it really should be. Shame
So you’d let the bus drive off the cliff because non-vegan ice cream doesn’t fulfill your standards for ice cream?
False analogy. The actual choice was had in 2024 was “drive of the cliff at 40 mph, or drive off a cliff at 38 mph.”
And you’d choose 40?
The problem is you only look one election ahead. You’re myopia is what made you drive off a cliff in the first place.
No, I’d rather vote for vegan ice cream first, then vote against driving off a cliff.
Unfortunately our current system doesn’t allow for that, so obviously I vote against driving off a cliff, but it feels so stagnating.
You will be please to hear that we are currently driving off the cliff. No more stagnation, isn’t this great?
I’m referring to / summarizing the Ratchet Effect.
Obviously movement for the sake of movement is not inherently good. But when our only allowed form of action is to vote and we see that voting has no or negative effect, it seems fruitless.
Because a slightly more realistic scenario is that the Dems vote to just throw some people off the cliff, and that’s agreed between the two parties.
Even if you have ranked choice voting, you probably still do not live in a democracy.
Yes, you do. Just a shit one. I hope I don’t have to explain how that it still a lot better than fascism.
It just puts you on the top of the slide towards fascism
Calling it harm reduction is thinly veiled 'both sides same" nonsense / “n n not enough”. Dems deliver when they get a majority in all 3 houses. Want more? Then give them more majorities.
Harm reduction is highlighting that both sides are not the same. Fuck’s sake.
It’s basically saying one side harms, the other side harms less. Aka both sides harm. Aka both sides same. I see it as “both sides same” lite.
People got called out on “both sides same” so they switched the term to “harm reduction” to slip in the notion that both sides harm. I already see it in this thread.
I think the main target audience here are people who already think that both sides do harm. I think what is being told here is that “even if we were to accept that both sides do harm, then the other side does it magnitudes more than the other one.”
Couple thoughts on that 1) Don’t play into their notion that both sides harm/both sides the same. That’s what they want. 2) We need to show them dems actually deliver. That’s not harm reduction, that delivering. Then the conversation turns to how to get more.
I’m realizing lots of people have binary thinking. It’s either harm or help. So the idea of harm reduction allows them to mentally put it in the same camp as harm. And once it’s in the same camp, then they think it’s all the same, and then they think there’s no point in it.
If a person is anti-dem, there’s no way you’ll convert them with logical arguments. Or with any arguments at all. But you can get them to vote anti-Trump.
Different strategies for different situations. And, from a European viewpoint, it sounds ridiculous that Dems somehow “deliver”. From my perspective they are a massively lesser evil. But, in USA I would definitely vote for them just to vote against fascism. They might be stupid, but they are not malevolent. Trump is. (And stupid as well.)
You wouldn’t be able to convince me to like a party as far right to as the Democratic party. I wouldn’t like even the European right-wing parties, and they are – even in places such as Poland – to the left of anything USA has to offer. And if you tried spending your effort into making me actually think I might want more of what Democrats can offer, you’d be wasting your effort. I could vote such a party for what they offer less, but definitely not for what they offer more!
I’m going to post this first; 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 let them fall into that trap of what’s basically both sides same.
If a person is anti-dem, there’s no way you’ll convert them with logical arguments.
That’s part of the problem with trying to argue “harm reduction”. You’ll never convince them trying to argue “harm reduction”. It plays right into what they want: to portray Dems as harm, just harm lite. That’s what they want, for you to call it harm reduction, which is harm lite, which is on the same side as harm, which they won’t vote for.
For the rest of this message, you’ve fallen for their trick. I started to elaborate but I’m going to cut it off there.
I don’t think I’ve fallen for their trick, because this is the first time I’m even observing a conversation on this topic. It hasn’t traditionally been a very relevant subject on this side of the pond.
The target audience is people who will upvote any shitty meme that affirms their shitty politics.
Holy fucking shit
Do you not see it already on this thread? I already saw “more like the ice cream does not exist” and “more like one side wants to drive off, the other wants to drive really close so they can decide to drive off later.”
Yes, but they’re explicitly in opposition to harm reduction as illustrated in the meme.
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.
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.
-
You don’t understand the intended message of this post. The people abstaining from voting because the ice cream is not vegan ARE the “both sides are the same, none will bring real change, that’s why I won’t vote/vote 3rd party” people that ultimately help steer the bus off the cliff. “Harm reduction” as used in this post is an argument for voting for the better of two realistic outcomes, even if that outcome doesn’t meet your purity standards. The point being that one option (bus driving off the cliff) is much much worse than the other.
Letting them think/use the term “harm reduction” lets them mentally put in the category of harm. I’m saying you can’t let them mentally put it into the category of harm or less harm or harm reduction, because they still see it as harm and thus won’t vote for it.
I understand the intended message. I’m saying it doesn’t work because to them it’s still harm.
(*I think this is flipped around. 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 let them fall into that trap of what’s basically both sides same.)
“I voted for the cliff because I know the ice cream place is down below it and I wanted to get there faster.” - Have to assume this person exists, but I’m not sure who they would be in the analogy. 🤔
Edit: Oh, I just had to scroll down a few more comments to find them.
Removed by mod
this sounds very utilitarian. you known who else was utilitarian? thanos!
A world with half as many people in it would be so nice. Thanos had the right idea.
Who let Tim Pool in here
