It has a historical meaning (Harm Reduction: defiant acts of care and resistance) and a literal meaning (harm reduction: tactics to mitigate tangible damage from oppressive systems). You’re just arguing pedantics unless you’re pretending my meaning isn’t obvious from the context of the conversation.
it seems like you understand that voting isn’t harm reduction, and now you’re moving on to something else. your syntax is hard to grok, so just… have a nice day.
harm reduction has a specific meaning, and voting does not qualify.
It has a historical meaning (Harm Reduction: defiant acts of care and resistance) and a literal meaning (harm reduction: tactics to mitigate tangible damage from oppressive systems). You’re just arguing pedantics unless you’re pretending my meaning isn’t obvious from the context of the conversation.
voting doesn’t do either of those
if it did, them how could Trump’s policies be causing harm?
If “did not vote” was a candidate they would have won 23/24 presidential elections since 1932. How’s that working out for us?
it seems like you understand that voting isn’t harm reduction, and now you’re moving on to something else. your syntax is hard to grok, so just… have a nice day.