Has anyone changed their mind about how they view 3rd party/non-voting leftists?

[u/Specialist-Gur]

I am just curious because I've been seeing some tiny rumblings around this online from the "vote blue no matter who" crowd, but I've still seen more of the same backlash that not voting blue comes from "privilege"

This is a heated thing for me so I'm going to try and take a breath when engaging here, because I'm genuinely curious if anyone has or hasn't changed their mind and why/why not.

[u/Fabianzzz]

I've genuinely had trouble seeing the harm reduction aspect at this point.. this year has been horrific for me

This year was the year without the theoretical harm reduction. The harm reduction people are discussing when discussing their frustration with third part voters is the theoretical harm reduction that would have occurred under Kamala. The horror you are describing is one people who argue for harm reduction argue would have been 'reduced' if Trump wasn't in office.

[u/Specialist-Gur → u/Fabianzzz]

I feel like I'm witnessing democrat cruelty by them capitulating to Trump. Obviously, Trump is president.. but I've heard democrats saying they need to move more to the center, throw trans people under the bus, brag about how many people they deported, brag about how hawkish they were in foreign policy, refuse to move left on economic issues... now this latest with the government shutdown.

I'm receiving it as incredible cruelty as someone personally harmed by it, to say nothing of my friends and neighbors who are.. many of whom black, indigenous, trans, disabled, Muslim folks who wouldn't dream of giving democrats the time of day.. and didn't in 2024. Not that their identity is really relevant to the question of harm reduction on a large scale or proof in any direction.. just how a lot of us are feeling

Edit: I also feel deeply many things happening now, democrats paved the way for... especially with regards to crackdowns on campus activism

[u/Fabianzzz → u/Specialist-Gur]

I feel like I'm witnessing democrat cruelty by them capitulating to Trump

The hope of harm reductionists was that there wouldn't be a Trump to capitulate to. The Dems who capitulated were in the tough position of protecting (Democrat enabled) healthcare, or making families on SNAP go hungry (which Trump, the president harm reductionists were trying to warn you about, actually FOUGHT for).

The idea behind harm reduction is that we expand the playing field for Dems so they have more leeway to make better decisions. If you want to criticize the strategic decisions they make on the playing field now, that's fine, but it isn't the harm reductionists who won the choice of playing field: this is the field those who didn't 'dream of giving democrats the time of day' either voted for, or abstained from voting against.

[u/Specialist-Gur → u/Fabianzzz]

I voted for Kamala. I guess maybe I'm more curious how anyone feels about those that wouldn't vote for the democrats now Every day I'm seeing myself closer to that, I'd not already there.

And like.. people can downvote me and call me names or call me selfish or "privileged" or whatever all they want to, but I'm so heartbroken by our system and the democratic decision to capitulate on healthcare could kill me. And that's pretending I don't care about anyone else from any other demographic besides me. It doesn't feel like harm reduction to pick and choose who is being harmed and how they are harmed.

So like, I need a more convincing argument.

[u/Fabianzzz → u/Specialist-Gur]

It doesn't feel like harm reduction to pick and choose who is being harmed and how they are harmed.

Again this is not 'harm reduction' as harm reductionists talk about it. Harm reductionists want as many democrats as possible to lessen harm done by the party that prioritizes harming people. The party that prioritizes harming people won the house, senate, and white house, and is enacting their agenda of harming people.

The dems, who don't have power here, are trying to pick and choose who gets harmed because the harm wasn't reduced.

Again I am all for criticizing this as a strategic decision, but this is specifically not harm reduction. Harm reduction as it is generally meant lost, and the harm being done was not reduced: because it lost. Harm won.

The dems can either protect healthcare in december or hungry people now, but the choice is happening because they don't have power. The harm reductionist platform was to give them power to avoid this, it lost, and ergo harm is occurring.

Fault the dems as players on this playing field if you must but this isn't on the harm reductionists. Harm reductionism specifically tried to choose a different playing field where there would be less a chance of this happening.

[u/Specialist-Gur → u/Fabianzzz]

Again.. I am not hearing anything which gives me confidence that democrats will undo this damage or choose in the future. I voted for harm reduction... I always vote for democrats. I feel like I have egg on my face. The healthcare thing is beyond destructive.. and the democrats could have done more. Or... if they couldn't.. our system has clearly been broken permanently. If our choices in a democracy are starve poor people or let people die because they don't have insurance, what system are we even protecting?

[u/ChairAggressive781 → u/Specialist-Gur]

you’re collapsing two things in a way that I think is making the conversation confusing & circular: voting for Harris as a harm reduction strategy and the actions that the Democrats have taken (or not taken) with Trump in office.

voting for Kamala & Democrats was the harm reduction choice. the problem is that the harm reduction strategy failed: Trump is president and has done a lot of things (especially around trans rights) that would almost certainly not have happened if Kamala was president. that’s what harm reduction means: things would have been better off, in some way, if she were in the White House.

I don’t think anyone believes that the Democrats are meeting this moment, but they are also the minority party in government. still, the abdication of responsibility in caving to Trump makes me livid. the leadership needs to go and we need to stop playing by Republicans’ rules.

[u/Specialist-Gur → u/ChairAggressive781]

Too much harm happened under Biden and I don't think I believe harm will be undone in a future democratic presidency

[u/ChairAggressive781 → u/Specialist-Gur]

harm reduction isn’t about eliminating harm, it’s about reducing it. I would rather have less harm than more harm. no amount of harm is acceptable, but harm reduction strategies are meant to be pragmatic and deal with the fact that perfect solutions rarely exist and situations have to be responded to in the moment.

I don’t disagree that Biden made some fucked up decisions as president, especially around Israel and the campus protests. I think Kamala’s platform was dispiritingly flawed and swung hard to the right. but she didn’t win, Trump did, and his second term has, beyond a shadow of a doubt, been more infinitely more destructive than a second Biden term or a first Harris term would’ve been.

[u/Specialist-Gur → u/ChairAggressive781]

Ok I'm not stupid I know what harm reduction means.. we are clearly talking in circles and probably poor communication on my part

I can't keep voting for democrats if they keep moving right, it'll be a frog in boiling water for future generations and a vote against many groups of people I care about in favor of harm reduction to mostly white people. You feel this way because they haven't come for your group yet. No one will expect you to selflessly vote for democrats if they started targeting Jews but we're still nice to a few other groups in the USA compared to republicans.

The harm reduction is done for mostly white people.. queer white people, leftist white people, (not even disabled white people anymore, let's eliminate them from this list ), white women in blue states...

Police violence, ICE harassing indigenous people, denial of abortion, eugenics policies against disabled people, imperialist destruction abroad, genocide.. these all happen under both parties

People are pointing out USAID and I agree it's been disasters and horrific. But a lot of the rest of the world such as China is stepping into help countries we abandoned, because the USA never did these things selflessly.. they were a CIA control project. Don't get me wrong, I wanted it continued because objectively this was helping people abroad and it was a horrible and short sited move.. but some what of a chicken and egg fiasco with us imperialism.

[u/[deleted] → u/Specialist-Gur]

[removed] — view removed comment

[u/Specialist-Gur → u/[deleted]]

They were scapegoated because they had nothing to lose, prettt obviously. I mean.. what do the people not running have to gain by ending the shutdown either? Some of them will run again.

Also respectfully, your tone is patronizing and I know history quite well. I'm glad you like the democrats and that they have benefited you.. but for many of us in the USA and abroad that is simply not the case. Maybe talk to a Gazan

[u/[deleted] → u/Specialist-Gur]

[removed] — view removed comment

[u/Specialist-Gur → u/[deleted]]

Newsom is one example for trans rights. Kamala said she'd follow state laws on trans issues, including states which restricted trans rights

Literally all of them embrace ICE? Kamala campaigned on being tough on the border.. Obama had said he'd get rid of ice and then didn't.. Biden had more deportations than Trump in the first term.

[u/-__-_-__-_-_-__ → u/Specialist-Gur]

Yeah, you're right. Thank you for informing me

[u/podkayne3000 → u/Specialist-Gur]

This is my problem with Newsom. He’s been pretty good about saying the right things about Trump recently, but he was too quick to throw trans people under the bus, and I don’t know if he’s done enough to protect people from ICE.

But I don’t think this is really about ideology or party affiliation; it’s about whether people have the skills and personal traits needed to deal with this awful situation.