Leftists wish many centrists (who always appear to be right-wingers) would value human life over ‘harm reduction’ a.k.a. perpetuating a system that causes widespread harm, death, and suffering.
Imagine how much better the world could be if we didn’t have to constantly fight with ‘centrists’ to do the right thing instead of them trying to meet the far-right in a compromise.
“Come on, guys, sacrificing some people in our society so we can have rich people is better than sacrificing alot of people in our society so we can have filthy stinking rich people!”
“Come on, guys, sacrificing some people in our society so we can have rich people is better than sacrificing alot of people in our society so we can have filthy stinking rich people!”
You got it backwards.
It’s: “come on, guys, people are afraid of big sweeping changes, so - since filthy stinking rich people control the narrative - it’s better to make changes where some people will be sacrificed for the rich, than sacrificing all people for the rich”.
And your reply is the perfect example of a leftists who values purity over harm reduction.
That’s the issue, really. People won’t get behind anything new or radical etc., so the options usually are “getting worse slowly” or “getting even worse right now”, and picking that latter is not better than the first one. What’s the solution? Fuck if I know, but allowing the latter to happen cannot be it
You’re acting like Barn Raising is new or radical. Ya didn’t use to need to go into a lifetime of debt so bankers could live in luxury, the whole village would pitch in, get together and build a house for you.
I don’t disagree at all, but looking at the state of the world right now, even building that damn barn appears to be too radical for way too many people. Selfishness and greed are the virtues of today it seems
OK, please elaborate on how having some but not all people get out of the shit-hole is not reducing harm. Oh, wait, it’s not even “not reducing harm”, it’s “steadily increasing harm”!
I’m pretty sure you just mean rich people are afraid of any progress - especially because progress is a direct threat to their privilege.
No normal person is afraid of getting their basic human needs. I think the complete opposite is the case. People are afraid of the extreme deprivation which is a foundation for capitalism.
harm reduction
You keep using this term without any evidence of it existing.
I’m pretty sure you just mean rich people are afraid of any progress
No.
No normal person is afraid of getting their basic human needs
That’s false - a lot of people think that them getting their basic human needs would collapse something and cause irreparable damage. It’s bullshit, of course, but people - in general - are just by default afraid of change.
People are afraid of the extreme deprivation which is a foundation for capitalism
That’s absolutely false. I mean, come on, look around. If that were true, we wouldn’t have a resurgence of right-wing, liberal capitalism parties all across the board, and the US wouldn’t be what it is!
You keep using this term without any evidence of it existing.
I’m sorry, I don’t understand what you mean. Could you elaborate?
Now if we don’t have destitute or uneducated people, where are we going to get children for pedo billionaires to rape? Bet you didn’t think of that human rights violation, dirty commies!!!
It’s almost like the trolley problem was created to wrestle with the horrible choices life sometimes puts in front of us, instead of just giving us something to talk about in philosophy class.
The trolley problem typically illustrates how easy the choice is. Like in this case: Sacrifice no people so elites can live in luxury, sacrifice some people so elites can live in luxury, or sacrifice alot of people so elites can live in greater luxury. The obvious answer is sacrifice no people because elites living in luxury is of no benefit to anyone but the elites and if they didn’t live in luxury they would still get their needs met.
Surely you can think of some cases in your political life where you had to choose between a bad and a worse option?
Simple things, like voting strategically for the least bad of two options in FPTP voting systems, even if the candidate isn’t perfect. Like voting for Lincoln (racist white supremacist) over Douglas (enslaver).
Promoting and voting for the best candidate possible who is likely to win their election, even when they aren’t as good as you wish they were.
Realists (who sometimes appear to be centrists) wish many leftists would value actual harm reduction over purity.
Leftists wish many centrists (who always appear to be right-wingers) would value human life over ‘harm reduction’ a.k.a. perpetuating a system that causes widespread harm, death, and suffering.
Imagine how much better the world could be if we didn’t have to constantly fight with ‘centrists’ to do the right thing instead of them trying to meet the far-right in a compromise.
Let’s do a thought experiment.
You have a group of people who grumble about the status quo but are fed information that any change to the status quo is bad for them.
There’s a filthy rich dude who controls the information they are being fed.
You have two options:
Number 1 has around 0,00001% of succeeding.
Number 2 has around 30% of succeeding.
Which do you choose?
What exactly do you think they are trying to reduce the harm to if not human life?
They’re trying to reduce the harm to their own privilege.
You never hear people talking about “harm reduction” for palestinians, etc.
It’s strictly about keeping chuck and nancy happy.
OK, I guess it depends a lot on who is saying it. Individuals I can believe, but the grifters in power are bullshitting like usual.
Property. Wealth.
“Come on, guys, sacrificing some people in our society so we can have rich people is better than sacrificing alot of people in our society so we can have filthy stinking rich people!”
You got it backwards.
It’s: “come on, guys, people are afraid of big sweeping changes, so - since filthy stinking rich people control the narrative - it’s better to make changes where some people will be sacrificed for the rich, than sacrificing all people for the rich”.
And your reply is the perfect example of a leftists who values purity over harm reduction.
You’re NOT reducing harm, you’re steadily increasing harm when most of our problems could be easily solved by ending harm.
Exactly. By assuming the harm will carry on, these people consent to it
That’s the issue, really. People won’t get behind anything new or radical etc., so the options usually are “getting worse slowly” or “getting even worse right now”, and picking that latter is not better than the first one. What’s the solution? Fuck if I know, but allowing the latter to happen cannot be it
You’re acting like Barn Raising is new or radical. Ya didn’t use to need to go into a lifetime of debt so bankers could live in luxury, the whole village would pitch in, get together and build a house for you.
I don’t disagree at all, but looking at the state of the world right now, even building that damn barn appears to be too radical for way too many people. Selfishness and greed are the virtues of today it seems
Improved. But yeah, the privileged constantly endeavor to violently maintain their privilege.
OK, please elaborate on how having some but not all people get out of the shit-hole is not reducing harm. Oh, wait, it’s not even “not reducing harm”, it’s “steadily increasing harm”!
Who? Who are these people?
I’m pretty sure you just mean rich people are afraid of any progress - especially because progress is a direct threat to their privilege.
No normal person is afraid of getting their basic human needs. I think the complete opposite is the case. People are afraid of the extreme deprivation which is a foundation for capitalism.
You keep using this term without any evidence of it existing.
Around 90% of the population of this planet.
No.
That’s false - a lot of people think that them getting their basic human needs would collapse something and cause irreparable damage. It’s bullshit, of course, but people - in general - are just by default afraid of change.
That’s absolutely false. I mean, come on, look around. If that were true, we wouldn’t have a resurgence of right-wing, liberal capitalism parties all across the board, and the US wouldn’t be what it is!
I’m sorry, I don’t understand what you mean. Could you elaborate?
Now if we don’t have destitute or uneducated people, where are we going to get children for pedo billionaires to rape? Bet you didn’t think of that human rights violation, dirty commies!!!
It’s almost like the trolley problem was created to wrestle with the horrible choices life sometimes puts in front of us, instead of just giving us something to talk about in philosophy class.
The trolley problem typically illustrates how easy the choice is. Like in this case: Sacrifice no people so elites can live in luxury, sacrifice some people so elites can live in luxury, or sacrifice alot of people so elites can live in greater luxury. The obvious answer is sacrifice no people because elites living in luxury is of no benefit to anyone but the elites and if they didn’t live in luxury they would still get their needs met.
deleted by creator
Where is this “actual harm reduction” that I keep hearing about?
Surely you can think of some cases in your political life where you had to choose between a bad and a worse option?
Simple things, like voting strategically for the least bad of two options in FPTP voting systems, even if the candidate isn’t perfect. Like voting for Lincoln (racist white supremacist) over Douglas (enslaver).
Promoting and voting for the best candidate possible who is likely to win their election, even when they aren’t as good as you wish they were.
Sure but just as often the choice is between good, bad, and worse and people are looking at bad like good doesn’t exist