• ArchRecord
    link
    fedilink
    English
    11 month ago

    You can check out the other comment I wrote in response to a similar response here, but I’ll give an additional short answer here too.

    The point of buying extra time is to increase the chance of any other action being taken against the right succeeding. It doesn’t matter what that action is (although I did give a list in that other comment), and that’s not what my comment was originally about. It was solely about the fact that voting for the lesser of two evils is objectively better than letting the worse of two evils have a higher chance of getting into power.

    Harm reduction doesn’t work as a long-term strategy on its own, but not doing it just means any other politically beneficial action you want to take is less likely to succeed, since there’s now an even bigger fascist in power.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      01 month ago

      I would be fine if the “harm reduction” politican didn’t actively go against other actions taken. If Liberals were willing to do anything in addition to harm reduction I would respect them even slightly. Fundamentally the problem is nothing else is being done, we have incompetent and lazy people on the “left” while the right is completely fascist. You and I may acknowledge that harm reduction alone cannot stand as a real political strategy but until Liberals understand that as well it fundementally stands as a false hope and leads people to complacency.

      • ArchRecord
        link
        fedilink
        English
        21 month ago

        Of course, we can definitely agree on that. Liberals don’t seem to understand that voting Democrat isn’t the end of the road for positive political change.

        But of course, if liberals have no power at all, then changing their mind won’t exactly lead to them doing any action in the end anyways. Regardless of how stacked the deck is, voting Democrat at least won’t lead to as bad a result.