Warning: Some posts on this platform may contain adult material intended for mature audiences only. Viewer discretion is advised. By clicking ‘Continue’, you confirm that you are 18 years or older and consent to viewing explicit content.
voting isn’t a harm reduction strategy. a harm reduction strategy would be recognizing those bad things are going to happen and helping people mitigate the fallout.
Yes, by voting for the party that isn’t saying we should have the National Guard brutalize protesters, that protesters should be deported, and that Israel would be justified in nuking Gaza.
you are ignoring what harm reduction means and pretending voting fits the definition of this specific jargon. it does not, and claiming it does actually impedes the educational work that harm reductionists need to do to advance their strategies.
I know. From what I have seen of your comments. None of them were correct nor in good faith. Excepting this one, which was correct but not in good faith.
It is if you think women losing access to healthcare or Ukrainians being massacred is harm.
voting isn’t a harm reduction strategy. a harm reduction strategy would be recognizing those bad things are going to happen and helping people mitigate the fallout.
Yes, by voting for the party that isn’t saying we should have the National Guard brutalize protesters, that protesters should be deported, and that Israel would be justified in nuking Gaza.
you are ignoring what harm reduction means and pretending voting fits the definition of this specific jargon. it does not, and claiming it does actually impedes the educational work that harm reductionists need to do to advance their strategies.
Nah, none of that is correct.
saying something doesn’t make it true.
I know. From what I have seen of your comments. None of them were correct nor in good faith. Excepting this one, which was correct but not in good faith.
this just not true.