This is not about “perfect behind the enemy of good” because I after with that. What this is about is the crazies will stop at nothing to say “b b both sides same!” and they use the term “harm reduction” to sneak that idea in. Anything good they will try to categorize as “it’s merely harm reduction, not actually good. And because it’s harm reduction, it’s harm light, it’s harm, and I will not vote for harm!”
What part of that is wrong? It’s two people looking at the same thing and seeing different things. You see the term harm reduction and see it as good. They see the term harm reduction and see it as bad because [see my explanation above].
“Well, that’s just fucking wrong. I’m not going to give up on the meaning of words just because crazy people have.”
What part of that is wrong?
“it’s merely harm reduction, not actually good.”
“Reducing harm is good.”
I have been responding to exactly what you’ve said, and you think I’m ignoring what you said? Maybe you took “Well, that’s just fucking wrong” as my saying that your claim about what crazy people think was wrong. I could have been clearer about that.
My point stands. I don’t care what crazy people who are wrong think. And if some bystander is going to be swayed by an argument that harm reduction is bad, they’re crazy, too. There’s a lot of fucking crazies, and there’s nothing I can do about that.
Ok we cleared up the last that you think they are wrong, not that I was wrong.
But you are still basically ignoring this:
It’s [the meme of] two people looking at the same thing and seeing different things. You see the term harm reduction and see it as good. They see the term harm reduction and see it as bad because [see my explanation above].
If you use the term harm reduction, they will never see what you want them to see. Never. Because it’s this scenario:
Except in this case you’re both using the same word to mean different things. Call them wrong, and they’ll call you wrong, and you’ll talk past each other forever.
If you use the term harm reduction, they will never see what you want them to see.
As before, I don’t care what crazy people think. I’m not wasting my time trying to convince unreasonable people to accept reason, and I’m not going to bend to suit what crazy people might accept.
I’ve spent many years trying to use reason as a tool for progress, and look where we are now. We’re well past the point where reason is an effective tool. The crazy people have numbers on their side. Perhaps they always have, and it just hasn’t been obvious until the last few years.
Call it incrementalism then.
This is not about “perfect behind the enemy of good” because I after with that. What this is about is the crazies will stop at nothing to say “b b both sides same!” and they use the term “harm reduction” to sneak that idea in. Anything good they will try to categorize as “it’s merely harm reduction, not actually good. And because it’s harm reduction, it’s harm light, it’s harm, and I will not vote for harm!”
Well that’s just fucking wrong. I’m not going to give up on the meaning of words just because crazy people have.
What part of that is wrong? It’s two people looking at the same thing and seeing different things. You see the term harm reduction and see it as good. They see the term harm reduction and see it as bad because [see my explanation above].
Reducing harm is good.
Are you seriously going to ignore what I said? That’s basically twice.
I see it it as good. They see it as bad.
“Well, that’s just fucking wrong. I’m not going to give up on the meaning of words just because crazy people have.”
I have been responding to exactly what you’ve said, and you think I’m ignoring what you said? Maybe you took “Well, that’s just fucking wrong” as my saying that your claim about what crazy people think was wrong. I could have been clearer about that.
My point stands. I don’t care what crazy people who are wrong think. And if some bystander is going to be swayed by an argument that harm reduction is bad, they’re crazy, too. There’s a lot of fucking crazies, and there’s nothing I can do about that.
Ok we cleared up the last that you think they are wrong, not that I was wrong.
But you are still basically ignoring this:
If you use the term harm reduction, they will never see what you want them to see. Never. Because it’s this scenario:
Except in this case you’re both using the same word to mean different things. Call them wrong, and they’ll call you wrong, and you’ll talk past each other forever.
Orrrrrrr call it incrementalism.
As before, I don’t care what crazy people think. I’m not wasting my time trying to convince unreasonable people to accept reason, and I’m not going to bend to suit what crazy people might accept.
I’ve spent many years trying to use reason as a tool for progress, and look where we are now. We’re well past the point where reason is an effective tool. The crazy people have numbers on their side. Perhaps they always have, and it just hasn’t been obvious until the last few years.
Sorry but you’re still ignoring what I’m saying. Whether you talk to them or not, you’re not even speaking the same language (see meme).
Frankly no wonder you’re frustrated because you’re talking past them, just like you’re talking past me.