this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2025

1488 points (95.2% liked)

Political Memes

8788 readers

2805 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civil

Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformation

Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memes

Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotion

Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

No AI generated content.

Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

Rooki@lemmy.world

automodbeta@lemmy.world

Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world

Tenthrow@lemmy.world

JonsJava@lemmy.world

1488

To those in countries where democracy might last another election - harm reduction is not optional (lemmy.world)

submitted 2 days ago by PugJesus@lemmy.world to c/politicalmemes@lemmy.world

505 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social 6 points 13 hours ago (4 children)

If "harm" and "less harm" are the only two options, then the only question is how quickly you die. There's the argument that we have to do "harm reduction" in order to buy time to organize for something better, but we've been procrastinating for decades apparently. Since all of history informs us that humans act only when inaction is no longer tenable (and sometimes not even then), really the only material difference between "harm reduction" and accelerationism is, again, the timeline.

[–] chaogomu@lemmy.world 4 points 11 hours ago

The harm or less harm are thanks to Ordinal voting.

First Past the Post is the absolute worst offender, but every single Ordinal voting system will eventually devolve into a forced choice between this or that.

Thankfully there are Cardinal voting systems. Those always boil down to the word and. For example, I can say that I support getting ice cream, and sandwiches, and a slushy, and even just finishing the route, but not going over that cliff.

My support for any given item is counted independently of my support for any other option.

To see what option wins, you just look at total support.

Different Cardinal systems have their own little quirks, but the key in all of them is that ability to give multiple items identical levels of support.

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] Asswardbackaddict@lemmy.world 5 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah.... But also, Carlin was right saying this shit is all a stage. We've got groups of bullies picking on us, and I'd rather throw bricks than help them decide who to pick on next.

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 0 points 10 hours ago

You can throw bricks 363 days out of the year and reduce harm 2 days out of the year. If you live in a state with easy mail-in ballots allowed, you can throw bricks 364.8 days out of the year and reduce harm .2 days out of the year.

[–] pastermil@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 hours ago

Meanwhile, the people who want ice cream:

1000048903

[–] SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world 4 points 16 hours ago (5 children)

Everyone's upset about the vegan ice cream voters not voting for regular ice cream.

No one is upset at the regular ice cream people for being unwilling to vote for a vegan ice cream place because their choice is default in their mind.

Both sides are holding each other hostage. One has a moral reason and the other just doesn't want to compromise.

And yet.

[–] j_z@feddit.nu 3 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

I’m kinda upset about the cliff-driver voters too tbf

[–] SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world 1 points 12 hours ago

T r u e

[–] null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Thats not a viable choice though.

The viable choices were ice cream or cliff. Choosing vegan ice cream is functionally equivalent to not voting.

[–] SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world 3 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

Genocide isn't a viable choice.

[–] null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 8 hours ago

Yes it is. Trump campaigned on genocide and got elected.

[–] Stabbitha@lemmy.world -1 points 8 hours ago

Thank you for helping get Trump elected

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] smol_beans@lemmy.world 1 points 12 hours ago (3 children)

The people who want to get ice cream are also helping a psychopath murder innocent civilians so it's a bit of a toss up

[–] rbesfe@lemmy.ca 3 points 10 hours ago

It really isn't

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 1 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Oh, good thing the people who want to go over the cliff aren't helping a psychopath murder innocent civilians.

... they actually want to increase the assistance to that psychopath so they can murder more innocent civilians?

Huh.

[–] smol_beans@lemmy.world 0 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (1 children)

So you admit that framing the choice as "choose between getting ice cream and dying" is incredibly misleading. The choice is really "choose between 500,000 innocent people being murdered or 2,000,000 innocent people being murdered"

The conclusion isn't as obvious when you ask that question is it? I know you're gonna say you still pick the 500,000 innocents dying anyday. But then don't lie about what the choice was to make yourself feel better.

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 0 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (1 children)

So you admit that framing the choice as “choose between getting ice cream and dying” is incredibly misleading.

Considering that "Palestinians being murdered" was not on the ballot either way? No, not really. Our choice was between "Fascism" and "Democrats making marginal improvements", and you ghouls chose to campaign for fascism to win. Congratulations.

The conclusion isn’t as obvious when you ask that question is it?

No, the conclusion is just as obvious if you aren't a fascist who thinks that more minorities dying is a good thing. But I understand that the lives of the marginalized don't matter in comparison to your need to feel smug and morally 'pure'. Enjoy the blood on your hands.

[–] smol_beans@lemmy.world 1 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

The results of your campaign came in a while ago now. It's bold to stick with a losing strategy but I gotta admire the moxy

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 1 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

"You lost the election, therefore, you are wrong."

How unsurprising that you simp for the fascists after working so hard to see their victory through.

[–] Jax@sh.itjust.works 1 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (1 children)

Which side do you think is more realistic to change later on? The people who want ice cream, at the very least, want to live.

[–] smol_beans@lemmy.world 2 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

The politicians that are on the "ice cream" side only talk about "ice cream" when it helps them win elections, they spend every other moment arming psychopaths at the behest of their wealthy ~~donors~~ owners

[–] SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world 5 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (2 children)

Is voting for controlled opposition harm reduction?

Like I agree that Kamala was the correct choice, but her inevitably milquetoast liberal policies would keep us stagnant until people voted in the next Republican out of boredom

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 1 points 10 hours ago

Like I agree that Kamala was the correct choice, but her inevitably milquetoast liberal policies would keep us stagnant until people voted in the next Republican out of boredom

Luckily, as voting in Republicans has historically shown us, voting in the Republican will lead us to radicalize and become socialists. /s

If the core issue is that we're not putting in the work after engaging in harm reduction, harm acceleration is not likely to fix that problem.

[–] AeonFelis@lemmy.world 4 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Is voting for continuing to drive on the road harm reduction? It'd keep the bus from getting ice cream until people vote to drive off the cliff out of boredom.

[–] Bacano@lemmy.world 4 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

Well it's an analogy so let's get more precise.

You don't vote for a destination, you vote for a bus driver. Your two and only two choices are both telling you they'll take you to the ice cream parlor while claiming the other driver will drive you off a cliff. Meanwhile, you see the bus passing multiple opportunities to stop at several different ice cream shops, doughnut shops, etc.

Then you find out that the company running the bus gets paid for every mile driven. And that every bus driver you've seen has been skimming the bus fare money.

Your shouts of protest against the bus chartering company are drowned out by all the other passengers trying to decide which of the two drivers would take the bus to the ice cream parlor vs the cliff.

[–] null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

This analogy is wearing really thin.

The candidates were not promising the same thing.

Trump is rolling out the policies he campaigned on. Tariffs, being mean to poor people, and owning the libs.

He did not promise ice cream.

[–] Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz 1 points 11 hours ago

I mean we got tariffs and being mean to poor people under Biden. So we had a driver promising ice cream while they only drive toward the cliff, the other driver criticizing him for not going fast enough, and then a guy with a megaphone yelling at anyone who says "we need the first guy to stop driving off a cliff, turn the wheel, hit the brake, something please, or the other guy is going to get to drive"

[–] AeonFelis@lemmy.world 3 points 15 hours ago

If neither driver is going for ice cream, it makes little sense to make ice cream the sole topic to base your voting (or non-voting) decision on.

load more comments