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 p... |
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 mu... |
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, ... |
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 t... |
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 o... |
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 th... |
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 m... |
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 li... |
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 igno... |
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 ju... |
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 th... |
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 sid... |
<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 si... |
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... |
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... |
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... |
</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'... |
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. T... |
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 rec... |
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... |
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 ... |
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 actua... |
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... |
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 ... |
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 backgro... |
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 re... |
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... |
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 prov... |
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 som... |
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 tr... |
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 thin... |
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... |
</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 i... |
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... |
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.... |
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 ... |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.