Voting is Not Harm Reduction – An Indigenous Perspective
Voting is Not Harm Reduction An Indigenous Perspective February 2020 – When proclamations are made that “voting is harm reduction,” it’s never clear how less harm is actually calculated. Do we compare how many millions of undocumented Indigenous Peoples have been deported? […]
https://www.indigenousaction.org/voting-is-not-harm-reduction-an-indigenous-perspective/Open linkView original on lemmy.world
The Republicans spend a whole lot of time and money between gerrymandering, a fight against mail-in ballots, and a country-wide push for voter ID. I wonder why that is...
If voting wasn't an effective way to push for change, they almost certainly wouldn't work this hard to prevent reasonable people from doing it.
Not a single one of our rights has ever been won via electoralism
another liberal who refuses to read the article
Yeah. Tell that to the millions of kids affected by Trump's policies. Cancelling USAId programs as well as food and health benefits never would have happened if he hadn't won the presidency. Voting would have absolutely reduced that harm
That's just an objective fact.
USAID is a tool of imperialism. The US creates the circumstances that require aid.
USAID serves dual functions. Are you seriously claiming that the US created ebola or malaria, just so that they could help treat it? Please tell me you aren't that divorced from reality?
USAID serves one function, imperialism. They may not create those diseases but they allow them to go untreated.
first, you can't prove a counterfactual.
second, do you know how I know you didn't read the article?
I read the article. I disagree with the premise that it doesn't matter. In a very literal sense...it does.
That's what "harm reduction" means. Not that one choice is "good" and the other is "bad". Only that one choice is going to lead to "more" harm than the other.
Does it suck? Yes. Does doing nothing, help? No. It makes things worse.
harm reduction has a specific meaning, and voting is not harm reduction.
You're right. It does have a specific meaning...and this is it.
Right now, the US is staring the consequences of their voting choices, straight in the face. This is literally the most obvious time in recent history, where this principle is so clearly defined.
Refusing to hold politicians accountable has higher consequences than voting. What we see right now is decades of no consequences, which has given politicians the message they can do whatever they want and shift as far to the right as they want because you'll keep coming back to support them. 50 years of liberal 'lesser evil' has grown into a huge unmanageable evil.
Ok. And how do you "hold politicians accountable" without voting? Who is going to hold them accountable, if you don't elect people to the positions that have that authority?
And how do you think things have crept to the right, this whole time? It's a slow, incremental process of electing slightly more right-leaning candidates, every time. The only way to fix that is to vote to the left, every time. It takes just as long to pull it left, as it did to pull it right...but the process works the same way in both directions.
Doing nothing, just hands that selection process to other people. And then, you get whatever you're given. Which is where we are now.
It's actually very simple. Politician does something bad, refuse to vote for their reelection. We are where we are right now because liberals refused to ever hold their own politicians accountable. Obama deported and bombed more countries, if any other presidents prior to him. He prosecuted more whistle blowers than any other president's combined before him. He bailed out Wall Street and left us hanging. And the liberal solution, hey, let's re elect this guy. Their only concern is making sure the blue fascist gets a job so they could be the ones pulling the trigger.
you, too, are facing the consequences of voting.
do you know how I know you didn't read the piece?
"I cannot accept the existence of legitimate dissent!"
The only psyop is liberals thinking their party isnt complicite
They are aware their party is complicite. Hence in multiple states have voted in mamdani democratic socialists in the primaries. Lo and behold theres a left wing mayor in NYC that isnt zionist. Not sure his views on indigenous rights but I imagine it isnt pro colonialist .
Voting does work, voting is an effective tool of power. Liberals, conservatives, facists, democratic socialists all recognise that. But for some reason you have you idiots who think the only way to influence the country is by calling it colonialist and calling liberals (who make up the majority) enemies. Good luck with that strategy
Really showing your whole ass by just admitting you'll never go against the majority opinion
Thats not what I said. I said many ml call liberals enemies - as in people you murder by either execution or war. And if those people are the majority, implying your going to murder them once you get power isnt a great idea
this is written by an indigenous person. you are disregarding their perspective. just like a liberal would.
Liberals are the enemy, and when they are in the majority they act like it.