From the blog description:
Please feel free to translate, or to print and paste around anything on this blog.
Highlighting an essential defining part of the term "harm reduction" so that no one misses this:
and yes, there is a part of harm reduction that is aimed at not moralizing about the behavior that you're trying to reduce harm from. but if you're a progressive - as most of the people lecturing us about "harm reduction" purport to be - you should already understand that these behaviors are not ethically bad in and of themselves. it is not inherently unethical to use drugs or be sexually active as a teen, so the fact that harm reduction efforts could "encourage" that behavior is also not unethical! if you think that it is, then you're actually a conservative!
Obviously, this would not apply to, say, a fucking genocide
Archived link to article only because CNN deserves zero clicks
I'm sure someone will find a way to call the phrase "designated dingus area" and the use of chalk "antisemitic"
Don’t forget that basically half the country thought the students deserved it…
Btw half of the students killed at Kent State weren’t even protesting, they were just there
Genocide Joe: Responsible for more death than the worst serial killer in history
There's an honest campaign slogan for you. (Actually, his supporters would probably love it.)
Take note, voters! Vote Blue! None of this would be happening under Democratic leadership.
Oh wait...
I've seen many people take absolutists stances and throw accusations or insults at others who don't. While I applaud that they recognized serious problems, I want everyone to understand why I might take actions that seem to ignore or even worsen those problems: I only have so much power and so many options, none of which are ideal, so I do the best I can with what I have. I might prioritize stopping one bad thing over stopping another; that's not me excusing the other bad thing, that's me playing the cards I have to get the least bad outcome.
Personally, I base my moral decisions on expected outcomes. I would pull the lever in the trolley problem. I understand some people think me a monster for that, and I certainly wouldn't feel good pulling it, but I see it as me net saving people. I disagree with people that wouldn't pull it, but I see where they're coming from and I'm not mad at them (disappointed, maybe). Of course, as well as pulling the lever, there may be options to try helping the one person on the tracks, and we should definitely attempt such a rescue.
This whole topic can be applied to the do-i-vote-for-biden thing that this community seems divided over, but it's much more broadly applicable too.
Anyway, this is just me saying that I don't think the absolutist all-or-nothing approach some people take is a good idea, and I also don't like when some of them call me a bad person for not doing the same.
- No Discrimination, this includes usage of slurs or other language intended to promote bigotry
- No defending oppressive systems or organizations
- No uncivil or rude comments to other users
- Discussion, not debate. This community is exclusively for genuine logical debate, any comments using whataboutism or similar will be removed.
- No genocide denial or support for genocidal entities. Anyone that supports the mass murder of civilians will be banned.
These guidelines are meant to allow open discussion and ensure leftists and post-leftists can have a voice. If you are here to learn, then welcome! Just remember that if you're not a part of the left (Liberals don't count) then you are a visitor, please do not speak over our members.
Matrix server: https://matrix.to/#/#libertyhub:matrix.org
