PugJesus comments on Any number of deaths is worth the fantasy, apparently

This is not about "perfect behind the enemy of good" because I after with that. What this is about is the crazies will stop at nothing to say "b b both sides same!" and they use the term "harm reduction" to sneak that idea in. Anything good they will try to categorize as "it's merely harm reduction, not actually good. And because it's harm reduction, it's harm light, it's harm, and I will not vote for harm!"

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 9 child comments

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 7 points 1 year ago (8 children)

Well that's just fucking wrong. I'm not going to give up on the meaning of words just because crazy people have.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 8 child comments

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (7 children)

What part of that is wrong? It's two people looking at the same thing and seeing different things. You see the term harm reduction and see it as good. They see the term harm reduction and see it as bad because [see my explanation above].

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 7 child comments

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 2 points 1 year ago (6 children)

it's merely harm reduction, not actually good.

Reducing harm is good.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (5 children)

Are you seriously going to ignore what I said? That's basically twice.

I see it it as good. They see it as bad.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

"it's merely harm reduction, not actually good."

"Well, that's just fucking wrong. I'm not going to give up on the meaning of words just because crazy people have."

What part of that is wrong?

"it's merely harm reduction, not actually good."

"Reducing harm is good."

I have been responding to exactly what you've said, and you think I'm ignoring what you said? Maybe you took "Well, that's just fucking wrong" as my saying that your claim about what crazy people think was wrong. I could have been clearer about that.

My point stands. I don't care what crazy people who are wrong think. And if some bystander is going to be swayed by an argument that harm reduction is bad, they're crazy, too. There's a lot of fucking crazies, and there's nothing I can do about that.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

Ok we cleared up the last that you think they are wrong, not that I was wrong.

But you are still basically ignoring this:

It's [the meme of] two people looking at the same thing and seeing different things. You see the term harm reduction and see it as good. They see the term harm reduction and see it as bad because [see my explanation above].

If you use the term harm reduction, they will never see what you want them to see. Never. Because it's this scenario:

Except in this case you're both using the same word to mean different things. Call them wrong, and they'll call you wrong, and you'll talk past each other forever.

Orrrrrrr call it incrementalism.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

If you use the term harm reduction, they will never see what you want them to see.

As before, I don't care what crazy people think. I'm not wasting my time trying to convince unreasonable people to accept reason, and I'm not going to bend to suit what crazy people might accept.

I've spent many years trying to use reason as a tool for progress, and look where we are now. We're well past the point where reason is an effective tool. The crazy people have numbers on their side. Perhaps they always have, and it just hasn't been obvious until the last few years.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

Sorry but you're still ignoring what I'm saying. Whether you talk to them or not, you're not even speaking the same language (see meme).

Frankly no wonder you're frustrated because you're talking past them, just like you're talking past me.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 1 point 1 year ago*

As before, I don't care what crazy people think. I'm not wasting my time trying to convince unreasonable people to accept reason

Who's ignoring whom? I'm not trying to change the minds of crazy people at all. I'm not "talking past them," because I'm not talking to them at all.

Except you, apparently.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

load more comments (-1 replies)

[+] ACDAMallcardriversaremurdera@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

[removed by mod]

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world [S] 5 points 1 year ago

And Ukrainians, and Palestinians. But I guess they don't matter either, so long as you get to celebrate the deaths of some American minorities at the same time, eh?

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[+] Plebcouncilman@sh.itjust.works -9 points 1 year ago*

That depends on the threshold for harm. But yeah, if you take the maximalist claim that any death or harm direct or indirect is unacceptable, you are basically arguing for no changes in society because we do not know the future and there is always uncertainty.

Conservative doesn’t mean reactionary, it is what it means now just like liberal now is taken to mean progressive, but that is not the real definition of the word it’s simply how people have been using them as a sort of shorthand.