Loads of people who vote Democrat are well aware that capitalism is fucked and has only ever worked for the rich. Voting for a Democrat does not imply agreeing with every party decision.
The question is whether you agree with harm reduction, accelerationism, or nihilism.
From a harm reduction standpoint, it makes sense to elect the imperfect candidate who will at least try to make things a little better. This is the same thinking that makes things like needle exchanges a good idea. Yes, maybe it would be better if no one were addicted to heroin, but given that some people are it’s probably be better to reduce the likelihood that they become a vector for blood-borne illnesses.
From an accelerationist standpoint, it makes sense to elect the worst possible candidate in the hopes that it’s jarring enough to get people to change the system. This approach of making things better by making things worse reflects the conservative tendency toward punishment as a solution. If addiction is punished and demonized, people will have a strong incentive to avoid addiction.
From a nihilistic standpoint, it makes sense to refuse to vote for anyone you don’t fully agree with. Participation in the political arena can be disregarded. This approach reflects the perspective that consequences don’t mean anything, so we might as well all share the same needle because it’s easier.
Personally, I find harm reduction to be the most beneficial option.
I mean, you’re right in the general sense, though OP’s quote does say, “liberals”, not, “those who vote Democrat”. So the implication is clearly pushing against people that think Democrats are a good choice and not simply the lesser of the two evils.
What do you propose we do about it? This isn’t the 1800s where we fight with muskets. The U.S. military is the most advanced military in all of history.
No government in history has ever survived 3.5% of their population in active defiance against them. They still rely on us for food and supplies and while the government has crazy advanced weapons that has always been the case throughout history. There have been periods of time where the government had guns while its citizens had pitchforks and the citizens still were able to bring about change. The imbalance of weaponry has always been there between a government and its citizens throughout history. Today we don’t have pitchforks we have guns like AR15s and they have drones but we are the ones who build the drones with materials that we mined and manufactured. Their weaponry has gotten more advanced but so has ours, but as always we have the masses.
Loads of people who vote Democrat are well aware that capitalism is fucked and has only ever worked for the rich. Voting for a Democrat does not imply agreeing with every party decision.
The question is whether you agree with harm reduction, accelerationism, or nihilism.
From a harm reduction standpoint, it makes sense to elect the imperfect candidate who will at least try to make things a little better. This is the same thinking that makes things like needle exchanges a good idea. Yes, maybe it would be better if no one were addicted to heroin, but given that some people are it’s probably be better to reduce the likelihood that they become a vector for blood-borne illnesses.
From an accelerationist standpoint, it makes sense to elect the worst possible candidate in the hopes that it’s jarring enough to get people to change the system. This approach of making things better by making things worse reflects the conservative tendency toward punishment as a solution. If addiction is punished and demonized, people will have a strong incentive to avoid addiction.
From a nihilistic standpoint, it makes sense to refuse to vote for anyone you don’t fully agree with. Participation in the political arena can be disregarded. This approach reflects the perspective that consequences don’t mean anything, so we might as well all share the same needle because it’s easier.
Personally, I find harm reduction to be the most beneficial option.
I mean, you’re right in the general sense, though OP’s quote does say, “liberals”, not, “those who vote Democrat”. So the implication is clearly pushing against people that think Democrats are a good choice and not simply the lesser of the two evils.
Is extending the life of capitalism really considered harm reduction? I bet more people suffer in the long run with no healthcare and constant wars.
What do you propose we do about it? This isn’t the 1800s where we fight with muskets. The U.S. military is the most advanced military in all of history.
No government in history has ever survived 3.5% of their population in active defiance against them. They still rely on us for food and supplies and while the government has crazy advanced weapons that has always been the case throughout history. There have been periods of time where the government had guns while its citizens had pitchforks and the citizens still were able to bring about change. The imbalance of weaponry has always been there between a government and its citizens throughout history. Today we don’t have pitchforks we have guns like AR15s and they have drones but we are the ones who build the drones with materials that we mined and manufactured. Their weaponry has gotten more advanced but so has ours, but as always we have the masses.
Only if they keep making people
These motherfuckers would forcing HepC needles on every junkie if they could.
100% agree, although the post said nothing about voting