1045
To those in countries where democracy might last another election - harm reduction is not optional
(lemmy.world)
this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2025
1045 points (95.8% liked)
Political Memes
8780 readers
3275 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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 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."
The target audience is people who will upvote any shitty meme that affirms their shitty politics.
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.
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.
I saw the term "harm reduction" fucking everywhere before the election. I eventually realized they meant it as an argument to not vote for Dems. "Why should I vote for harm reduction it's only harm reduction". Looks like everyone fell for their trick.
Then probably you live in the USA. Why would I see a term that is only relevant for elections of another country? What do you know of porvarihallitus? It's a relevant political phrase that I saw a lot during the previous parliamentary elections, but probably you have still never encountered it.
You entered a conversation that was clearly about US elections.
Yes. Because I have first-hand experience on what it feels like when it's clear that neither Republicans' or Democrats' program would be something I'd wish for.
If you want to get the likes of me to vote against fascism, then you need to sell it as a vote against fascism.
And if you mean that you saw the phrase "harm reduction" in newspapers you read – did also the anti-democratic people see it?
And you're not doing that by calling it harm reduction. They see harm reduction, as harm lite, as harm, which they won't vote for. We're going around in circles so I'm gonna leave.
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.
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.
I thought of a different way to put this. It's like that meme where two people look at the same things and see different things.
You see harm reduction. You see that as a reason to vote for Dems.
They see harm reduction. They see that as a reason to not vote for Dems. Because to them they see harm reduction, is harm lite, is harm, and they will not vote for harm.
I say don't fall for their framing of calling it harm reduction.
Ok 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 fall for their trick and don't let them fall into that trap of what's basically both sides same.
If you let them use the term harm reduction, that lets them categorize it as harm. That's what they want to do. They want to categorize it as harm, just harm lite. Once the categorize it as harm in any way, they won't vote for it. That's why they want to categorize it as harm lite. Don't let them.
I think this is pretty similar as 1. They want to put everything as "harm less" instead of help. Again so they can categorize it as harm, and thus not vote for it. Again, don't let them categorize it as "harm less".
Point out that Dems can't do anything without all 3 houses. And they've had all 3 houses for only 6 years out of the last 44 years. 2 years under each of Bill Clinton, Obama, and Biden.