text stringlengths 0 9.69k |
|---|
Which means this shaming is also a catalyst for the policy change to happen at the very first place, not only individually but also towards the higher ups. Proud to propose. |
</pm> |
<lo> |
What will social movements do on our side? First, we'll still employ positive education, teaching people for why recycling link is good, why environmentally sustainable actions are both useful to yourself and the rest of society. Number two, we'll allocate resources to fixing the underlying reasons for why it is that people cannot take the most amount of positive change. |
In the instance of, for example, not enough vegan food, many people are having to go to more, um, like meat-based products instead. We would rather allocate resources of the social movement to instead trying to fix those problems by highlighting or subsidizing these types of vegan products instead. Note that this is mutually exclusive to our side for two reasons. |
So, the government bench cannot co-opt this. One, social movements have limited political capital, so having to convince your members that shaming others is a strategy innately takes away from the time that you could use for other things, which is why the priority of doing our policy is less on their side. Number two, and this is critical, shaming inherently contradicts this because our strategy pins the blame on society. |
Society has failed to educate for why recycling is important. Society has failed to give you enough recycling bins when it comes to major metropolitan cities. Instead, on their side, you are trying to pin the blame on the individual for failing. So, these two narratives contradict each other, right? Because if you're trying to pin the blame on a person who fails to recycle, then you can't also subsidize, like, recycling centers because then you're saying that recycling centers are unavailable. |
So, you have to pick one strategy or the other. This means that on their side, it actively takes away from better strategies. Why is it that our counterfactual is better? Immediately building our positive comparative that places us even above closing. |
First, we're relatively more likely to get buy-in because the movement is perceived to be more educational rather than being more intolerant of other people, which is a prerequisite to everything else in the debate because you need to get the buy-in for any strategy to be effective. Because this mass amount of people opting in is what creates the legitimacy for people to view this movement as something that's good rather than just a select few groups of people trying to have propaganda to convince others of their own beliefs. |
So, this explains why on our side we will still get change, and our change is more effective. With that, I talk about two arguments. First, shaming itself is an inherently ineffective strategy, and number two, shaming leads to less buy-in for these movements. First, shaming is an inherently ineffective strategy, and there are three layers to why this argument is true. |
Number one, shaming itself will always be unnuanced, and there's two reasons why the shaming isn't precisely targeted and the most effective things. Because note all of Gov. bench material presumes that you shame the right people, that you're able to shame them enough in order to get this amount of change. |
Two reasons why that's not true: one, OG don't have the fiat to mechanize precisely how the shaming will be carried out by the social movements as a support motion. So, look intuitively at how this is done. Most of the time, it's individual members of social movements seeing things that they view as negative and then making a moral disposition as to whether that's good or bad, assigning some form of value to it and then trying to shame that person with very limited background of what the person might actually be going through. |
But number two, all the blatantly bad behavior they talk about, such as going clubbing during COVID or large-scale littering, are already illegal. There are already government regulations against this, which is what social movements are doing. They are less of those things, but rather smaller things that may be more like not explicitly illegal or more like debatable; they're more contentious stuff, which is why exactly it is true that shaming might not actually be the best case. |
Because you're making a moral judgment on those people all the time. So what does this look like? It looks like you filming videos of people going out during COVID lockdowns without considering the fact that many poor people needed to work because they were unemployed or didn't have enough government welfare. This ignores the structural conditions that led to them violating those laws and instead shifts the blame onto those people. This is principally unjustified because you, as a movement, are supposed to be advocating for their rights, but on your side, you say that the person is at fault. You're double punishing them. Someone who's already poor, someone who cannot afford vegan food, someone who cannot stay at home during the lockdown, is now being double punished by the very movement that's supposed to protect them by shaming them even more. |
Number two: Shame is least effective for the people in power because they have the most power to insulate themselves from the shame. OG example, used Taylor Swift. My question to OG is: How effective has this been? Taylor Swift can still use her private jet even with all the public backlash because all this shame is just cast out. It is seen as an echo chamber of anti-Taylor Swift hate. Taylor Swift fans are still going to her concerts. Rich conservative politicians can still say racist remarks because even if they are shamed by progressives, their own voter base is still voting for them. So shaming has very limited effectiveness, even for the most powerful people. If you don't believe that it actually shames the poor, |
Number three: Shame is short-term. If OG is right and people immediately want to reduce visceral public shame, their focus is on doing what immediately takes away the shame rather than what is actually important. So here's the issue: If their case is right that it's actually quite difficult for many people to change their decision-making calculus, it's very hard for people to take the harder option. This means that the easier option in response to that shame is just to do those things in private. |
So in contrast, on our side, instead of people just doing these types of things where they can maybe be seen by fewer people, with lesser chances of being filmed and uploaded on YouTube, what instead people are doing is understanding the underlying reasons for why what they're doing is bad. This means people on our side don't indulge in such negative behaviors in private spaces. They are more likely to engage with the truth of how this works. CG, |
<poi> |
We have already educated people that throwing rubbish around is something that is bad, but people still do it. So why then is your model on people educating people still likely, "work?" |
</poi> |
Uh, that's cool. We get more resources into educating people in more effective ways because we spend less of that capital on trying to do shaming. As I've explained in the setup, there is a trade-off. |
So it actually gets better on our side. But second, I'm going to do the weighing here. Actually, maybe in our absolute worst case, we don't get change because we are less harsh. Maybe we don't get Taylor Swift to change on either side, but at the very least, this is a trade-off we are willing to take because on your side, you do more harm than good to the movement. You get less buy-in, you get more hate from the rest of society, and this means you put the movement in a worse position than it was previously. So yes, maybe we don't get huge amounts of change, but at least your side is doing more harm than good to the movement. You have to credit this as a harm that happens on your side. |
Second argument on buy-in. In the previous argument, I've explained why this is ineffective and why the movement is also already likely to get buy-in because people feel that the movement has failed them. But now I'm going to give you three additional independent reasons for why you get less buy-in on their side. |
Number one: Social movements will be viewed as elitist by internal members of the movement. For instance, feminism in developing countries will be viewed as not by the people and for the people, but out of touch because they're actively willing to shame local women instead of being for the community. Yes, we understand that progressive movements might be seen as Western-centric. On either side, I'm pointing out that it compounds and gets worse on their side. |
Number two: Social movements will be viewed as hostile and judgmental by the rest of society. Again, many people might not be progressive. If you're trying to convince someone on the sidelines, the worst thing you can possibly do is try to shame them and get them to be against you, oppositional against you, which means they're less likely to support you. |
Number three: This creates the narrative that you, as a member of a movement, ought to prioritize the movement over everything else. Maybe you feel like you can be inclusionary on our side because you can prioritize both your job and being a member of the movement. On their side, everything that's done in self-interest is actively shamed. So this means people are just way more likely to view this movement as aggressive and buy-in less. For these reasons, this is terrible. Oppose. |
</lo> |
<dpm> |
Shaming is what uniquely creates change towards the people. Exactly like what my PM has already told you, there is a psychological effect. It is psychologically affecting the people. For example, for them to start creating change, education is not something that is effective anyway in the status quo. Knowing how there's already a lot of access to education and so on, but people still do not change anyway, all to talk about there's going to be allocation of resources and it's unique to them because social movements have limited political capital. |
For instance, they also have limited economic capital as well. But here's the problem, right? If people still do not have the awareness to actually start creating change, I don't think it's effective for them to actually invest in all these causes. At the end of the day, it's not going to create change on their side. Therefore, the buy-in towards the people and towards this entire social movement is not going to be as effective as what O tries to assert to you. |
But moving on then, what are we going to tell you on our side of the house? Right? We want to talk about how shaming uniquely generates more social movement buy-in towards people and for them to actually trust inside these social movements when there are actual changes and tangible benefits that people can actually receive. The promise is pretty simple, right? Because social movements will only progress if there is support that comes from the people, and support inherently only comes when society realizes that the agenda is something that is effective and there are actual changes that can benefit the people as well. |
Under O, you need to assume that people will understand the issue, and you need to expect them to change behavior and expect them to actually care about economically friendly causes on their side to actually have changes in their house, which is a huge prerequisite for them to actually get the buy-in in the first place. Why is this ineffective? Right? Because I think my PM has already uniquely characterized to you clearly on why education and socialization is something that is highly ineffective. |
Because the process of internalizing the harms of violation is something that's very difficult for people to actually receive. Why is this true then? I think there's three main reasons. First thing, because everyone has access to education and is already aware that polluting the environment, for instance, is something that is bad, but there are no active incentives for them to change. Exactly because people do not even feel the urgency to begin with. That is a reason why regardless of how much allocation of resources that you have under OO, it is never going to be effective. |
Exactly because you do not start changing people's mindset as to why they have to tap into all of these activism efforts that these social movements are trying to advocate for. That is the reason why even if they have a lot of recycling centers to see out the house, it's not going to be effective if people do not actually want to engage in all of those activities in the first place. But secondly then, because people in general do not have the capacity to calculate the probability of climate change effects themselves. They lack the epidemic access, for instance, to whether or not they will be infected with COVID if they violate the lockdown policy. That is the main reason why even if people are aware of the initial harms of climate change, for instance, they will still do it anyway. |
Exactly because they do not think they are going to be affected that harmfully under their house. But thirdly, because people have pre-existing biases or beliefs, therefore, it's very difficult for you to expect them to actually internally change. That is the main reason why people will still breach quarantine policies because they don't believe in the pandemic, for instance, or they ignore these economically sustainable efforts because they prioritize short-term economic gains. These three points are already enough to prove to you why education or even other methods is something that is highly ineffective in creating change for the social movement to begin with. |
So in part, if the social movement is not tackling down the issue, it is extremely difficult for them to fulfill their purpose of activism or creating change that actually is in line with their entire agenda or their entire value as a social movement. We think shaming tactics are something that is inherently justified because none of the other strategies have proven to work in the past or have proven to be effective historically. Right? It is the last method that has to be used by social movements to start creating change, and shaming is something that is unique exactly because it pushes people. It points out what is the problem that comes from these individuals for them to actually start realizing they're concerned about moral punishment under OO. |
But the problem is moral judgment can be something that is collectively agreed upon by society because the harm of climate change or the harms of violating the quarantine policies, for example, impacts every single individual underground, regardless of whether or not you are privileged or regardless of whatever background that you come from. That is the reason why everyone should inherently agree that this is something that is good. |
But how does shaming uniquely create a change that is beneficial for the social movement? Right? Firstly, because we think on a micro scale, shaming affects people psychologically. They start changing their entire behavior, i.e., starting to use more eco-friendly products, for instance, exactly because you make them realize that they are the problem inside society. For example, you hurt their pride. You make sure that they are the ones who need to comply with the entire policies that you have. |
See, the question is: How does this affect the rich? Right? There are three things. First, it will happen; it will affect the rich because most likely if public figures' reputations are contingent on the people's voices, there will be considerations to start changing their behavior. That is the exact reason why so many influencers are starting to promote eco-friendly products or tap into environmentally friendly trends, for instance. |
But secondly then, at worst-case scenario, if the rich do not change their behavior anyway, they stay like that symmetrically. Therefore, the movement also fails to tackle the issue. But it's worse under your side of the house exactly because you do not promote the people. The social movement is doing something to prove that these people are the ones who need to be held accountable for all the causes that happen towards the environment or all the causes that happen during quarantine. |
Thirdly, on a comparative basis, why is it better than OG? Because we show the people. The social movement is trying to create a change. They're calling out the privilege for their irresponsible actions just because they are rich enough to fly a private jet, for example. Right? Especially because activism is always something that is collective. So, at the very least, it creates more trust from existing followers because the social movement acknowledges their effort to create a change and is pointing out why other people are the cause of all the harm of environmental issues or health issues as well. |
Secondly, on a micro-level scale, before that, CO. |
<poi> |
You said that the reason why people don't follow social justice movements is that they gain something, i.e., utility. So why exactly would they trade that off for some people on the internet saying that they're bad? |
</poi> |
Here's the thing, right? If you abide by quarantine policies, you do not get infected by the virus. That is already a tangible benefit that people can feel. So, I don't see why that is a problem; such is debate. |
Second, on a micro-macro level scale, the bottom-up approach that my PM explains to you is also something that is very important because only when people on the ground understand why it's important for them to abide by all the policies that exist within society, for example, or the agenda that the social movement is trying to provide to them, does this directly create a realization for them to actually understand what the problem is that we have within society. We told you that there are already a lot of systemic issues, i.e., how the government has a lot of limitations. For example, they don't provide you enough resources for you to be economically friendly or for you to have a lot of safety. |
Now, in instances during quarantine policies, for example, only when you have the realization, there comes more demand from society to want to create a change. Here's where uniquely clashes the entire mechanism about allocating capital. Also, this seals the entire argument. We want to talk about utility as well. I think resources and capital are something that's limited under OO because social movement is very limited as well in capacity. The value that you uphold is limited when you cannot even prove to the people why they should engage in the movement; therefore, tap-in is something that is limited. |
Secondly, there's more incentive from society to lobby towards the government as well on our side to hold them accountable for all the systemic issues that exist within the state. That's the reason why the government starts giving up more subsidies for people during COVID. That's the reason why they start creating more campaigns and more centers for economically friendly causes. Politicians are more likely to listen because they have the capacity and they have the interest because they acknowledge that societal approval is important to maintain their power. Propose |
</dpm> |
<dlo> |
I'll start in three, two, one. I think opening government already lost the debate the moment they directly jumped into saying that shame leads to societal buy-in without really any explanation of why societal buy-in can eventually occur. Because their mechanism really depends on the majority of society already buying into the cause that is being pushed by social movements, which is particularly untrue most of the time since they claim education is failing and basically every single individual does not care with this urgency within the status quo. That means the majority of individuals in this particular case do not care about your movement from the very first place. |
So the question here is that then if their mechanism about calling out the rich leads into the society to see them as doing something, is then something that is inherently wrong or something that is unlikely to occur from the very first place? On top of that, I don't think they ever engage in Omar's tree explanation of why shame is ineffective. I think by that regard alone, I think opening government already lost the debate. But let's engage with them one by one. |
Let's take a look at the first thing that they said about, you know, shaming people's lifestyles leading to embarrassment, and this eventually leads to people changing. The first thing I just want to say is that if their characterization of education is ineffective, that means the individuals most likely are in denial. If they are in denial, that means the problem is no longer on the access or no longer on education, and probably calling out will not be effective for two additional reasons. |
The first one is that the circle and the bubble that these individuals live in is probably very sarcastic, probably very in denial as well. That means proximity toward them is not something that is visible. The second thing that I just want to say is that it leads to just performative action being done by this type of individual. Probably they avoid the places that are much more feasible to the public, for example, and those things that change are unlikely to occur as well because what the nuance that you give to this individual is not rearranged or restructured education, but rather this individual feels that they just need to avoid social movements at all costs. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.