text stringlengths 0 9.69k |
|---|
It's hard even for this person it it constantly has that fear that could to come one day and help tell their family oh i'm gay, by the way I come from albania, we are a very conservative society, I don't believe that in one day i'll just, if I was gay I would just go and tell my family oh i'm gay regardless of how man... |
We just don't like tightly integrated families and why why is that? Chris told you already about how those families Exist to be gatekeepers of all families of all family values. So think about of the cycle that is there. |
<poi> |
So look some families are super strict But this isn't the majority of families if the norm is tight integration, then cutting someone off because they're different isn't something that you want to do. Most families are likely to adapt to someone being different Rather on your side where people just never talk to each ... |
</poi> |
No, it's not like people don't talk to each other again. They're going to engage and they're going to continue talking to each other. But they know that they are not, they feel like they are, they no longer feel like they are owned by their family, but or family obligation. Cause when you have that idea of that blood ... |
that they have. So it's not like that you're going to go against their beliefs. But in our world, what you get in our world, you get an independent person who thinks of themselves first, who doesn't have this strong bonds with their family. They feel like they own this to their family. They own their life to their fam... |
How much are they ashamed to claim that they are gay and just say that, oh, I'm going to just make my family ashamed because I'm gay, like it's not something you do. So think of, we advocate for a world where people are more independent from their family, where people can have the right to choose, to choose themselves... |
to their, it's very, because those kids are very bonded and they will be the family values regardless of they like them, they will just say, oh it's my family it's my family has done it like this, my grandfather did it like this, my uncle did it like this therefore, I have to do it I have to do it ike this. |
</ow> |
<pm>: |
Three things in this speech, firstly, framing what the power of these religious figures and institutions actually are. Secondly, explaining why, in both cases, that is, in cases where the religion is not supported by the state and in cases where the religion does support the authoritarian regime, why in both of those c... |
Okay, on the first thing, what the power of these religious figures and institutions actually are. Being the power of these figures is really important. We think that these figures are seen as having epistemic access to God, particularly with priests, for instance. They're seen as having a direct connection with God, a... |
But the second thing is the fact that religion itself is really important and is really open to interpretation. The Bible or the Quran has loads of different interpretations to it, and these religious figures are really important in doing that, which means that they have unique knowledge which they can then transmit do... |
Yeah, so as I said in my setup, there are two possible cases, one, where the religion is kind of repressed or at least not supported by the government, and secondly, where the authoritarian regime is supported by religion itself. I think in both those cases we have the ability to get these religious leaders onside. How... |
But secondly, in the cases where the religion does actually work with the state, we still think you're quite likely to get some elements of that religion onside. Firstly, because you can target specific members, like specific religious leaders within that group. Even if the overall religion supports the state, you can ... |
Okay, why does getting these people on your side actually massively help the movement? Before that, I’ll take a closing if they have one. |
<poi> |
Yeah, what sort of resources or influence do you think these movements have to genuinely recruit powerful religious leaders? |
</poi> |
Look, I think part of this debate is acknowledging that the movement has to be able to, in order to have the debate. But also, I think they can easily do this. They can easily go to send stuff to these members or whatever, appeal to them, like, attend their sermons and so on, and ask them to help out or just meet them ... |
Okay, so why is getting these people onside really good for the movement? Firstly, and most obviously, it's buy-in. You get people coming in from the religious group, and who are being led by the religious leader. Remember the analysis I gave right at the start about the power that these religious leaders have to actua... |
Thirdly, it means that in instances where the state is supported by some elements of the religion, the state no longer has a monopoly over religious understanding. That's what Zoya Ulhaq had in Pakistan, which enabled him to have massive power. We think that now these religious movements are able to challenge that narr... |
Crucially, though, this religious group of people who you get onside now is a group you lacked access to beforehand because you couldn't go to them in their own terms. On the other hand, the secular group of people who the opposition might talk about as being alienated probably won't be, because they want to overthrow ... |
So, proud to propose. |
</pm> |
<lo> |
We want to be absolutely clear, this debate is about protest movements and exactly what benefits are most possible and greatest for them. What are the interests of the protest movement? First, we think it's about staying true, obviously. Look, firstly, it's obviously about overthrowing the authoritarian regime. Second... |
Let me just move on to some quick points of rebuttals and then integrate the rest of them into my arguments. First, they say we get larger and stronger support because people are more emotional and they can support it more. Actually, I'm going to rebut this in my arguments later. But I want to revert this one thing tha... |
Now, I'm going to move on to my arguments and weave in my rebuttals in here. First, I'm going to say how it's bad that religious figures and institutions get involved because we think religious practices are rarely homogeneous. This means that you risk alienating a large source of people. So they say people are very, v... |
Secondly, we think that we lose mechanisms to protest. Often, religious groups have their own laws and doctrines that prevent them from doing things like violent protests. We think this means that they're severely inhibited. For instance, if Buddhism is anti-violence and if the protest groups need to employ civil disob... |
Third argument, though, we think that the religion as a whole might be in line with the government. We think religious institutions and figures often are the ones that propped up the government in the first place. We see this in the case of how the Catholic Church, for instance, supports the Filipino government and its... |
But the fourth most important argument that we want to make is that it exposes the protest to more harm. That means it's more easily shut down by the authoritarian government. Why? Because we think, as they say, you pin all your hopes on one guy, like the Dalai Lama or the pope or whatever, which is great. But look, if... |
My fifth argument is how it's terrible in terms of succession in the future. We argue that protest groups generally tend to be very interested in increasing the amount of stability and democracy of that regime after the authoritarian regime is overthrown. However, if successful, you risk replacing the authoritarian reg... |
So not only is it harmful to the protest, it's harmful to the values of the protest, it's harmful to the goals of the protest to install a long-term stable regime. And that's why in both the short and long run, in the small scale and the large scale, we win on the side of the opening opposition. |
All right, I'd like to thank you very much for the speech, and I'd like to call upon the second speaker for the government. |
</lo> |
<dpm> |
Here's why opening opposition has already lost this debate. Every single argument that they've made is talking about the harms of what they conceptually and we'll talk, I’ll talk about that in a second, but the harms of religious movements and religious figures without actually drawing an actual comparative picture. Th... |
And I'm going to talk about it in a second, but really all opposition talks about is like three things, right. The first, and by their own standards, right. They first talk about this idea about how one of the main interests of protest movement is overthrown, and we think we've already won that. Opposition didn't provi... |
First of all, we said that we're actually having mass appeal under our case. The only thing that did that is that they misconstrued that, oh, you know, they played around with Aniket's description of his epistemic access to God and how that's important. I'll get to that in a second. But really, why is mass appeal impor... |
The biggest problem with movements is numbers, is strength, which is why stuff like “strength in numbers” is a thing when it comes to movements, which is why stuff like the Arab Spring is huge, because you have a lot of people out on the streets, which is why the same protests that happened in Latin America in the 70s ... |
So we think on their side of the house, the fact that they acknowledged that there are significant religious groups that will be, you know, and that they’re not catering to means that you lose the most important aspect of protest movement, which is numbers. |
But the second thing is, that we tell you, they sort of say is that, you know, we have to protect values, because at the end, religious people will tend to be conservative and so on. First of all, the first goal of a protest movement, which they admit to, is sort of the idea of getting rid of the authoritarian regime, ... |
We think the main movement is egalitarianism, right? And that's one of the reasons why Mexico and Europe are prime examples of that, is that you have an anti-authoritarian sentiment in a lot of these religious groups, and the reason we win that is not just because we're sort of fighting, well, here, look at our example... |
Something that Aniket said. Why is that crucial here? Well, because we think that there are specific versions of religious readings that specifically become salient in these instances that allow for an anti-authoritarian regime. So, yeah, so generally speaking, we think that when religious figures incorporate these mov... |
But okay, here are some other things that we're going to develop in the rest of my speech. The first thing is, that one of the other things that we're clashing on here is this notion of alienating other religious groups. First of all, we think we're talking about countries that are, we're appealing to the majority reli... |
But secondly, we think that for people who want to overthrow the regime, it's on both sides of the house. The crucial feature that the opposition’s missing out on that we're bringing in is that it's not so much that religious people will come in and now you have a singular manifesto, but you're broadening the coalition... |
And this is crucial because broadening the coalition means you're expanding the range for appeal. And we think this happens all the time. I mean, think about, I mean, I can name a few of my head, but think about all the countries where you have national movements, where parties ally with each other to get rid of a sing... |
Why does that matter here? Because we think that insofar as protest movements are concerned with overthrowing authoritarian regimes, broadening a coalition doesn't mean that even in the worst-case scenario, if you have, let's say, an anti-abortion church that's kind of involved in this thing, we think that still helps ... |
Here's the last thing that’s really crucial here, right? That, this idea about parliament and stability. So basically, the opposition's case rests on this notion that, for, you know, once you get these people, they're going to actually take places in parliament and because, you know, at the end of the day, we have the ... |
Here's the problem with that. Aside from the fact that you don't have a mechanism for how you get rid of the authoritarian regime, we just think that the opposition is living in a wonderland where people aren't religious, right? The key feature of the countries that we're talking about, the vast majority of them, is th... |
But here's the last and most important, I think, one of the most important features of our case that they totally missed, which is the comparative. One of the key features that Aniket kept telling you about is that, even when you don't use these religious figures, what happens? We think exactly, we get instances like, ... |
And when we think that happens, that's what we think leads to more extremist politics. That's when we think that religion gets smeared and is used in a negative sense, right? Because it's always authoritarian leaders' interest to actually have religion in their backbone or the idea of a religious narrative, because it ... |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.