text stringlengths 0 9.69k |
|---|
First of all, the state won't buy it in the first place because they're not big enough, and second, even if it's like some case scenario where they did, they can't mobilize the military against them because there's just so many of them in swades that are divided across so many points that they would be significantly ov... |
So they cannot succeed, and in the best case, and like in the worst-case scenario, none of these benefits actually manifest, so we win anyway. So why is this better than their best case? So we show you that these divisions don't necessarily exist between, to the point where they would not be willing enough to engage wi... |
And I'm going to come on to that when I weigh against the opening because we can talk more about that. So like, even in the best case scenario that they give us about religious institutions having some kind of monopoly on state power and state narratives, we still win. |
So that's way against opening. Here, first of all, it's worth noting that we break the deadlock on opening half about overthrowing and whether or not it succeeds because opening couldn't decide. Teams couldn't decide, like, would you isolate or put off competing in other religious groups? We answered this. We don't put... |
For instance, look at Nazi Germany and the fact that different sects of religions, like different sects of Christianity were suppressed first before Catholicism was eventually suppressed because there was enough conflict happening there. Look at the fact that eventually the religious monopoly power that happened with Z... |
Like, ultimately, there is so much, like, these groups who are being suppressed disproportionately to other groups. As soon as they're united in their suppression, they have a common incentive to engage and struggle against authoritarian rule and resist it in a meaningful way because they can care more. They care more ... |
They can't spread the word of God if their mosques are shut down and their Bibles are being burned. Now the second point about this deadlock, this overthrowing happens. We show you yes, it does because these groups are probably being suppressed to some extent. Like I said earlier, like Zia explaining with religious gro... |
We showed you, Rachel showed you clear tipping point analysis as to why without the sheer number of movement, like sheer numbers that you get in the movement as a result of religious buy-in, this will not happen. Why is this first of all? Manpower because these religious institutions usually have such a hold over the p... |
And that without the sort of hold back that you have on legitimacy, without having them buy in in the first place, that you won't get enough support to overthrow them in the first place. So any of the harms that OG give you are meaningless anyway, and the second thing is the resources of political communities like reli... |
Like look at Martin Luther King and look at the sheer amount of power that medics would have or the fact that you have so many people they can have mass resistance on that economic level and on civil disobedience levels. The result of this is that ultimately what happens is that there is enough manpower and enough sort... |
This counter does not exist without the legitimacy of religious institutions, so it does not exist for opposition. So opposition says, like, this whole thing about it being bad for succession because these movements are seeking political capital at any given point. |
I will probably existing governments would take too much power. I'll tell you what's wrong with it. But first, like if opening I have anything. Okay, let's move on. So what's wrong with this? They don't analyze why religious groups want to get involved. Rachel tells you very clearly that they won't be the centerpiece ... |
So what happens as a result? People may be religious, but they don't necessarily want theocracies because they're simply buying into the fact that they're fighting an illegitimate regime. So the best case where this argument from OO is true, religious institutions don't necessarily want autocracy or theocracy because t... |
We tell you that religious movements have clear incentives on moral grounds and political grounds because even against their best case, we show you why they won't discern the political capital but they'll want to get involved. This helps vulnerable and oppressed faiths in significant ways where they're not able to part... |
And they won't be demoralized if they take out a leader because like martyrdom man. |
Okay, now let's go like, weigh up against the bench real quick. So they look like they went on the manpower argument. However, no, they can't access any of these benefits except for our analysis because we materialize how conservatives buy in, how we access a large and greater amount of resources and a greater amount o... |
Look at white people and the world that they had in like swinging support from Martin Luther King and for like black movements in the 1960s. |
For all those reasons, opposed. |
</gw> |
<ow> |
Three figures in this speech. First of all, holistic overview of the debate where our case falls within it and how you should judge it. Second of all, dismantling GOV's individual cases even further beyond what we're going to do initially. And thirdly, if they have time, specifically weighing against OO. |
Let's talk about this debate then, right? So I think what's really important to note is all of the scenes in this debate talk generally about the impact on the protests, the efficacy, etc. This is fine, but this is only one half of the coin because we tell you that this protest group always exists in contrast to someth... |
Why do you think this is? Why do we think that the increase that we tell you that you get in the power of the authoritarian regime is disproportionate to any increase that you may get in the resources and power of the protest group, even if everything that GOV tells you is true? |
I think it's got a couple of reasons. One, that the resource gap in terms of how many resources the two have, right. So that the people who you're more likely to be recruiting to the protest group are likely to be more impoverished, because specifically, because there are people who have not been benefited by the state... |
Brought back providing more resources behind them and using their media empires or whatever to recruit more people. I think there's a disparity in this. Second of all, even if you don't buy that, even we assume that there are equal resources on both sides, I'll take POI later. |
Note that leaders stay in power by co-opting the majority narrative anyway, right. Because that's the best way to do it. If you can have the majority narrative or at least a majority of the narratives, then you're more able to stay in power. It's just kind of common sense, and whether that's by divine rights of kings o... |
So not only do you get this sort of existential threat to their religion, which is more important than anything in the mortal life because it affects them for eternity going onward in the afterlife, but it also depersonalizes everyone else. But everyone else is just like evil in the eyes of this religion. So you get an... |
<poi> |
why is your case of a majority oppressing the minority more likely than the case of soviet countries, where the majority is oppressed and in these countries where religion is key, why are democratic values on your side sufficient for a successful protest movement? |
</poi> |
Right I think a couple things I think one note that there is still the gap in terms of wealth and power so like power that you have over the media power that you have in terms of resources, which I think happens regardless of whether it's a majority or minority in terms of the population it's still a majority or minori... |
Okay, let's talk a bit more about GOV specifically, right. Because they try to tell you that you get more people inside. The point at which you have religious people backing them, I think we're going to show that there's a pretty mitigatory. Why? Because I think one, note there's the wealth gap, which I've already talk... |
So I think these are probably the kinds of people who are still going to direct people to these groups; they might give some kind of backing to these groups already, and their followers are already. So these are the people who are already listening to these religious leaders. Their followers might be, are probably goin... |
The difference then is whether or not we platform them, we accept them, we integrate them into our protest groups. And I think that's when we tell you that you've got active harms because you synonymize the group; it's a religion as opposed to the religion just being one backer amongst many. |
And anyone else, I think this also beats the CG case, right. Why? Because one, note that when they tell you that people are held back from joining these groups by their religious beliefs, I think we tell you that you can still encourage joining without actively making this group, part of your religion, that your religi... |
That your religious leaders are still likely to encourage the ones who would have joined this group anyway, so likely to encourage joining us. We just don't have to platform them in return or integrate them. I think that this is probably the main thing that CG has, the only other thing that they have is the resource ma... |
</ow> |
<PM> |
A couple of points of model before going into a bunch of arguments. One, the way this probably works is we cross-reference a particular policy within an election plan or program to the socio-economic and demographic situation of a particular person, e.g., Trump scraps Obamacare. We will calculate the harm of that to go... |
<POI> |
Presumably, in the best case of this situation, you get one cycle of moderates voting, which leads to moderate policy reform, which means that the insurance that people get paid off is basically now because of the incrementalism. So this incentivizes increased circles in the future of polarization once people find that... |
</POI> |
One, we say that moderate policies are not necessarily those that will incur low compensation, depending on your socio-economic and demographic status. But secondly, then the best that you can prove, if that's the case you're going to run, is status quo, in which case we still win because we have a principal benefit ov... |
</PM> |
<LO> |
As we saw today, small margins matter in elections, and whereas the opening government says that means we don't know what people want, we say that if 30,000 people in Pennsylvania would have taken out insurance, that state might have gone in the other direction, leading to significantly more power for a person that doe... |
</LO> |
<DPM> |
I think that the opposition in this debate assumes that, first of all, poor people vote unanimously for one party or the other party, that one candidate is better for people, even though maybe some other people might vote him in, and that's generally what we should prioritize in this debate. I think we will win on this... |
<POI> |
So I'm curious, in your world, what exactly is the difference between, for example, fighting for more welfare policies for the poor or for that matter, on the flip side, why then do you stand for vote at all if you believe that they are all irrational? |
</POI> |
Because I think that inherently voting is irrational, and what gives voting the ability to be rational is that you can hedge against the said irrationality, right? Because there's other people who are influencing your decision, and you, as an individual, cannot do anything about it. That means that folks are most likel... |
</DPM> |
<DLO> |
Before I go into more extensive rebuttal against Opening Government, let me start with bashing their model. What they want to do is compensate individuals exactly for the harm that they incur. There are three responses I have to this model why I think that is unrealistic. The first one is you simply cannot do this. The... |
</DLO> |
<MG> |
One point of extension from CG today: why you will have way more moderate parties and policies and why that's indeed so important. Notably, the stakes are over Opening Government because why they perhaps give some access to why moderate policy might happen. They didn't explain why it's important, whether they're all or... |
<POI> |
Yeah, you don't just you are the only one who is getting compensated. All the people that still voted and were hopeful and now lost because you opted out of that election are getting screwed over without getting any compensation. How's that legitimate? |
</POI> |
This presumes that in the absence of this policy you would have won. I'm gonna talk about that in just a second. A couple of hints here. Firstly, in lots of the developing world, you don't actually have people who are standing for the lecture the common man simply because there's weak democracy. Then there's not actual... |
</MG> |
<MO> |
OG might be trivially true that many things in this world aren't things we can control. But just as the belief in self-determinism and self-flow is important for us in making good decisions in our lives, we think at the worst case, the illusion of agency is key to believing in the democratic system and creating a funct... |
<POI> |
Given that even in countries like Germany, last waves of people do not vote, your impacts are marginal in that situation. Why is it an illegitimate political preference to be protected from politics if your metric is literally an expression of preferences? |
</POI> |
Perfect. The reason why we think that broadly this short term is expression of presence is illegitimate is because it significantly harms the long-term outlook of that person to the extent that society can't function and people literally can't express any preference whatsoever, as I explained earlier. So yes, people mi... |
</MO> |
<GW> |
I'm unsure if CO believes that a large number of people will take this insurance option or a large number of people will not, because presumably their ideas about like social discourse collapsing about the inability to ever get any kind of political gradual change is contingent about the idea that lots of people will c... |
<POI> |
What we explain to you is that actually at the moment people, at the moment, sort of the government isn't representative, that has very long-term sort of spin-off effects. Why then don't you think that people's individual short-term incentives is worth more than the long-term incentives of the group that they represent... |
</POI> |
Well, I think like on a principal level, if there is a large body politic that necessarily feels disenfranchised from the political system, I think like on a principal level, and this is to some degree Opening Government's characterization, like you should be willing to give them the option of opting out of politics or... |
</GW> |
<OW> |
I want to start off by being very clear: CG doesn't have an extension. Their extension rest on a faulty mechanism that suggests that individuals, like politicians, sorry, are really afraid of having to pay compensation because it detracts from all the amazing economic policies that they want to pass in developing count... |
<POI> |
The belief that the individual vote is your only way to have recourse where the system is specifically the reason why people feel powerless and disrupt the system today, our policy, anything creates the awareness that the state is aware that the system may harm you and is known to compensate you for it to compensate yo... |
</POI> |
Yeah, it's perfect I was just about to move into this and explain why this specific shift in that narrative is so particularly harmful. So presumably the difference between this and any other policy that we've had so far, is that even if we acknowledge that democracy is broken, what we don't do is not make people lose ... |
</OW> |
<pm> |
Let's be clear as to what the goals are of these types of organizations, which are major nationals like, not national, major professional sports leagues for individual women's sports your goals are very long-termist. That's to say that currently, you have an established fan base but cultivating a new rabid fan base who... |
<poi> |
yeah can you please clarify how exactly is it going to look like that they're going to get mail engagement like, what are the things they're going to do? |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.