• Mopswasser@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    108
    ·
    6 months ago

    Now I imagine that there are impressionable people who think this speaks the truth and I’m sad.

      • PugJesus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        23
        ·
        6 months ago

        “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.

        • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          40
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          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.

        • spujb@lemmy.cafe
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          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.

          • PugJesus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            6 months ago

            Thank you, I incorrectly took the ‘harm reduction’ comment as satirizing progressives, rather than symbolizing the right-wing’s mocking usage of progressive terminiology.

            • spujb@lemmy.cafe
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              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.

      • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        33
        ·
        6 months ago
        1. That there is a coordinated effort in the USA between police and the wealthy to privatize all land and institutions.

        2. That harm reduction causes this.

      • Fades@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        64
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        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

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          57
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          6 months ago

          Sorry… that sounds like you’re agreeing with it. And no, what triggered this post was police reacting violently to protestors on university campuses.

          • Fades@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            54
            ·
            6 months ago

            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

            • webghost0101@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              16
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              6 months ago

              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?

              • Asafum@feddit.nl
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                6 months ago

                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.

                • webghost0101@sopuli.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  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

                  • Asafum@feddit.nl
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    6 months ago

                    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. :(

        • PugJesus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          40
          ·
          6 months ago

          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.

        • Desistance@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          36
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          It’s always funny to see authoritarians talk about MLK and miss the point of the protest completely.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          36
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          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.

          https://www.gphistorical.org/mlk/mlkspeech/

        • Perfide@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          33
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          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.

        • pjwestin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          6 months ago

          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: