“This is harm reduction” and “Centrists think you’re the extremist” makes this seem like a cynical response to the constant refrain that voting is harm reduction, but the idea that allowing the worse option to get in is something other than harm maximization is… absurd.
People, including you, are misunderstanding the harm reduction thing. I get why, but take a second to look into it.
Harm reduction is not a dog whistle; it’s literally just a term that means “do (traditionally/commonly bad thing) in (least harmful way possible).”
In the context of voting, which you refer to, this means “do voting for the candidate which does the least bad (aka least genocide or reversal of human rights).”
This comic uses the term in an entirely different context, however, totally divorced from voting, in fact. If you have only been exposed to the voting example, I get the confusion, but it’s important to recognize that you are confused here.
The comic is using “harm reduction” satirically, the cops use the common leftist language as a jab against the protesters.
As in: “Ohh we (the fascist government/cops) have no choice but to oppress you for making your voices heard… what a shame … be grateful we are just arresting and beating you because the alternative is us literally murdering you in the streets!” wink wink “Oh would you look at that, we’re doing ‘harm reduction’”
It’s a confusing comic, not great rhetoric, but I don’t see anyone else correcting the misconception about 50% of people here are having while the rest of us get it, so I hope this helps.
Thank you, I incorrectly took the ‘harm reduction’ comment as satirizing progressives, rather than symbolizing the right-wing’s mocking usage of progressive terminiology.
there is no right to assemble on private property, which is why we’ve privatized everything
Which isn’t true and the latest events which seemed to trigger this post happened on private business buildings, which is absolutely not a given right to protest there.
You can’t just take over a building and claim right to assemble, it’s just as ridiculous as Michael Scott’s claim of bankruptcy as a cudgel to assuage all issues, when that just isn’t how things work
Lastly, refusal to work within the legal framework does make those groups extreme.
When MLK did sit-ins, they didn’t destroy property and graffiti walls and the like. It’s not the same
And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the negro poor has worsened over the last twelve or fifteen years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met.
When MLK did sit-ins, they didn’t destroy property and graffiti walls and the like. It’s not the same
That is exactly what pundits at the time accused MLK of doing, and based on your comments here, if you had been alive during the Civil Rights Era, you would have agreed with them. For context, here’s how King was depicted in 1967:
I guess? Though I would question that, given how successful they’ve been in the acquisition. Typically speaking, things don’t happen on this kind of scale arbitrarily.
What part about it is untrue?
“This is harm reduction” and “Centrists think you’re the extremist” makes this seem like a cynical response to the constant refrain that voting is harm reduction, but the idea that allowing the worse option to get in is something other than harm maximization is… absurd.
The harm reduction is protecting capital. I never got anything to do with voting from this image.
Centrists are just people that want you to sit down and shut up so they can go about their day. Anything inconvenient to them is extreme.
People, including you, are misunderstanding the harm reduction thing. I get why, but take a second to look into it.
Harm reduction is not a dog whistle; it’s literally just a term that means “do (traditionally/commonly bad thing) in (least harmful way possible).”
In the context of voting, which you refer to, this means “do voting for the candidate which does the least bad (aka least genocide or reversal of human rights).”
This comic uses the term in an entirely different context, however, totally divorced from voting, in fact. If you have only been exposed to the voting example, I get the confusion, but it’s important to recognize that you are confused here.
The comic is using “harm reduction” satirically, the cops use the common leftist language as a jab against the protesters.
As in: “Ohh we (the fascist government/cops) have no choice but to oppress you for making your voices heard… what a shame … be grateful we are just arresting and beating you because the alternative is us literally murdering you in the streets!” wink wink “Oh would you look at that, we’re doing ‘harm reduction’”
It’s a confusing comic, not great rhetoric, but I don’t see anyone else correcting the misconception about 50% of people here are having while the rest of us get it, so I hope this helps.
Thank you, I incorrectly took the ‘harm reduction’ comment as satirizing progressives, rather than symbolizing the right-wing’s mocking usage of progressive terminiology.
Yayy glad my explanation made a difference. :)
I like the rhetorical goals of this post but obviously it’s not very effective due to the amount of misunderstanding getting in the way of discourse.
If nothing else, the
Which isn’t true and the latest events which seemed to trigger this post happened on private business buildings, which is absolutely not a given right to protest there.
You can’t just take over a building and claim right to assemble, it’s just as ridiculous as Michael Scott’s claim of bankruptcy as a cudgel to assuage all issues, when that just isn’t how things work
Lastly, refusal to work within the legal framework does make those groups extreme.
When MLK did sit-ins, they didn’t destroy property and graffiti walls and the like. It’s not the same
Sorry… that sounds like you’re agreeing with it. And no, what triggered this post was police reacting violently to protestors on university campuses.
Yes that is exactly what I’m talking about. Shame you don’t want to see it.
Acab but also, you can’t just do whatever you want and claim victim
MLK wasn’t working within the legal framework. That’s the point of civil disobedience.
It’s always funny to see authoritarians talk about MLK and miss the point of the protest completely.
Re your edit about Dr. King:
https://www.gphistorical.org/mlk/mlkspeech/
You’re an ignorant fool if you truly think MLK would be on anyone’s side in this situation except the protestors.
That is exactly what pundits at the time accused MLK of doing, and based on your comments here, if you had been alive during the Civil Rights Era, you would have agreed with them. For context, here’s how King was depicted in 1967:
That there is a coordinated effort in the USA between police and the wealthy to privatize all land and institutions.
That harm reduction causes this.
Yeah, okay. Ask an indigenous American if there isn’t a coordinated effort in the U.S. to privatize all land.
And ask a Republican if they want any public institutions at this point.
Also- https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/25/film-lays-bare-stakes-of-privatizing-us-public-lands
Also, the whole point is that it isn’t harm reduction. Whoosh.
I would say “coordinated” is not the right word. It’s just an orgy of greed.
So you think they’re just arbitrarily grabbing whatever they can?
Yeah.
I guess? Though I would question that, given how successful they’ve been in the acquisition. Typically speaking, things don’t happen on this kind of scale arbitrarily.