this post was submitted on 08 Mar 2024
492 points (99.8% liked)

196

17478 readers
1112 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.


Rule: You must post before you leave.



Other rules

Behavior rules:

Posting rules:

NSFW: NSFW content is permitted but it must be tagged and have content warnings. Anything that doesn't adhere to this will be removed. Content warnings should be added like: [penis], [explicit description of sex]. Non-sexualized breasts of any gender are not considered inappropriate and therefore do not need to be blurred/tagged.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel or email.

Other 196's:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
492
rule (lemmy.cafe)
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
 

plspls_pls_ stop calling each other fascists or astroturfers unless you have a thorough understanding of the uncommitted movement and what u.s. primaries are. there is so much blatant misunderstanding and misinfo going on it’s bad.

edit: if any loser dares call for an uncommitted vote in the general election? i will kick them in the balls (gender neutral) (in minecraft)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The candidate that does the least harm would probably be Cornell West or Jill Stein. voting for the senator who put in place the conditions for roe v Wade to be turned over, the senator who confirmed some of those very same justices, to be president does not reduce harm. if you won't take it from me maybe it'll take it from this guy

https://www.indigenousaction.org/voting-is-not-harm-reduction-an-indigenous-perspective/

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

sounds like you should vote for cornell west or jill stein then :)

i had already read this article long before today and it still doesn’t give a compelling argument that voting can’t reduce harm, sorry.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

harm reduction is a specific strategy, and voting is not harm reduction.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

okay if you want to just call it a semantics thing that’s fair. i’ll keep doing it though because it reduces harm. :)