If every election is a decision between the lesser of two evils and both evils become more evil over time then harm isn’t actually reduced in the long run. This is why harm reduction is a failing long term electoral strategy.
It absolutely is the best option, IF these are the only options.
You don’t get to constantly pretend that there’s some obvious other solution without ever naming AND campaigning it.
Basically, this entire thread is filled to the brim with online leftists hating on every possible option, propose fiire bombing walmarts, and then NEVER ACTUALLY FIREBOMB A WALMART.
It requires immense amounts of privilege to campaign for waiting for a better option to magically manifest.
If every election is a decision between the lesser of two evils and both evils become more evil over time then harm isn’t actually reduced in the long run. This is why harm reduction is a failing long term electoral strategy.
It absolutely is the best option, IF these are the only options. You don’t get to constantly pretend that there’s some obvious other solution without ever naming AND campaigning it. Basically, this entire thread is filled to the brim with online leftists hating on every possible option, propose fiire bombing walmarts, and then NEVER ACTUALLY FIREBOMB A WALMART.
It requires immense amounts of privilege to campaign for waiting for a better option to magically manifest.
And you’re so happy that there were no other options.
Imagine there’s an election with two candidates.
Both candidates have expressed that they will torture and kill you, specifically, r1veRRR.
One candidate will torture and kill you using environmentally friendly methods, the other will do so using fossil fuels.
Would you support the environmentalist candidate? Would you vote for them? Would you campaign for them?
People preaching harm reduction whose candidates only ever increase harm over the last offering know this. They’re arguing in bad faith.