As an anarchist who is opposed to accelerationionism, it’s frustrating how many people see it as an ideology that wants the state to immediately collapse.

I’ve had multiple arguments with liberals who say I’m not a real anarchist because I want pragmatic short-term progressive solutions like Medicare for all.

So yeah, I’m not wanting to condemn people to death for my ideology. Got me!

What you described is the literal definition of a conservative. So that means you’re a conservative.

What you described, gradual change , is the literal definition of a conservative. So that means you’re a conservative.

“Harm reduction is conservatism” is where we’re at.

Fuck’s sake.

Stop using the term harm reduction. The crazies use that term to “subtly” push the “b b both sides same!” nonsense. Don’t fall for their framing.

Except harm reduction is a real and good thing. Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

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].

it's merely harm reduction, not actually good.

Reducing harm is good.

Are you seriously going to ignore what I said? That’s basically twice.

"it's merely harm reduction, not actually good."

"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.

Orrrrrrr call it incrementalism.