Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
It's essentially a logical certainty that every major political party advocates for policies that are, by some reasonable measure, actively harmful to one of your friends. That is, unless you have like... three total friends.
|
The difference is the intent.
I've said this many times in this thread and others. I can overlook a policy that harms people if the intent is a net benefit, and the harm is either an unintended consequence, or a necessary evil.
Where I draw the line is policy where the intent is to harm people.
So many policies put forth by hard right wing politicians are being put in place with the intent to harm people directly. There is no other purpose.
For example, all of the rhetoric around trans youth, and the kind of bills you see the UCP putting in place (and any of the anti-trans bills in the US) have no redeeming quality. They aren't there for any reason but to harm vulnerable people. They aren't protecting anyone. They aren't improving the lives of anyone. Hell they aren't even saving money (the worst reason for hurting people, but at least you could call it a reason).
The purpose is harm for harms sake.
That isn't/should not be defensible by anyone with a conscience or an iota of empathy.
I was fully prepared to vote for the Liberals this election even if Trudeau had stayed on.
I was very open about the fact that I would rather choose open/active corruption vs open/active/targeted policy meant to harm vulnerable people.
Now that we've got better leader at the helm of the Liberal Party, the choice is that much clearer.