You're viewing a single thread.
Now I imagine that there are impressionable people who think this speaks the truth and I’m sad.
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.
-
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, 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.
-
If nothing else, the
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
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
I am not sure what argument you 2 are having but my perspective is that private property of any shape of form is but theft of the commons. And i don't listen to (subjective) morally wrong.
Nuance is that personal property is as sacred as a someones physical body.
I believe there is a complex discussion to be had what defined personal versus private property. Naturally i have my own ideas (the place you eat sleep live and work is personal, the place you technically own on paper but never visited is not) but in the end we need to decide as a society where or values are and this is a conversation we really need to start having publicly.
We are all born on the same planet as all our ancestors. Why would your rights to it be any less then anyone else?
We are all born on the same planet as all our ancestors. Why would your rights to it be any less then anyone else?
Because money.
Those that have the money get to "own" the property, with ownership comes power, no capitalist/private property worshiper is ever going to willingly give that power up.
They wont give up the power to trample on our rights but there still our rights.
I am taking a natural rights perspective here, important to note cause i feel some people interpret “rights” as a system of a legal framework rather then natural justice
I think we only have rights when we have the "violence" to defend them. We need them to be part of a legal framework so that we can use state violence to enforce their existence, otherwise it's just "might makes right" and no one has to respect what rights you think you have, nor will they if they stand in the way of profit. :(
State violence to enforce rights is what police is supposed to be now.
Human progress has gotten pretty far in understanding physical, but also psychological human needs and we are also rediscovering more and more things about our ecological biomes needs.
I believe that trough proper lifelong education we can come to realize a common understanding of respect for each other needs including their emotional bonds to for examples a house or a golden ring.
This cant possibly be a a one size fits all situation, equity over equality each according to their needs and capabilities.
This would probably rely on local trust within communities.
I think we would find that while all people are different we are globally similar enough in our needs and desires that once we get rid of central powers things wont be to different when going elsewhere. It be natural to respect the minor differences.
Sounds like sm tribalism hippy stuff but what should not be forgotten that we have modern technology and the internet. Ideas can and are spreading globally.
Got no clue what your name is m or where you live but lemmy is proof that without corpos wher much more united.
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
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:
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
You're an ignorant fool if you truly think MLK would be on anyone's side in this situation except the protestors.
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:
