1521
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
1521 points (95.3% liked)
Political Memes
8786 readers
2676 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
If "harm" and "less harm" are the only two options, then the only question is how quickly you die. There's the argument that we have to do "harm reduction" in order to buy time to organize for something better, but we've been procrastinating for decades apparently. Since all of history informs us that humans act only when inaction is no longer tenable (and sometimes not even then), really the only material difference between "harm reduction" and accelerationism is, again, the timeline.
The harm or less harm are thanks to Ordinal voting.
First Past the Post is the absolute worst offender, but every single Ordinal voting system will eventually devolve into a forced choice between this or that.
Thankfully there are Cardinal voting systems. Those always boil down to the word and. For example, I can say that I support getting ice cream, and sandwiches, and a slushy, and even just finishing the route, but not going over that cliff.
My support for any given item is counted independently of my support for any other option.
To see what option wins, you just look at total support.
Different Cardinal systems have their own little quirks, but the key in all of them is that ability to give multiple items identical levels of support.
You're absolutely right, as a wise leftist in the vein of this thinking recently said, we're all going to die anyway, so what's the point?
That's not even remotely the same vein of thinking, even though both Ernst and I used the word "die."
It's not? The argument in both is that increasing harm doesn't matter because everyone dies in the end, and the timeframe wherein people die thus shouldn't matter to decision-making. Would you like to explain how that's not the same vein of thinking?