text stringlengths 0 9.69k |
|---|
This is a leverage that is purely unique. We tell you that this group cohesion that you push and pushing on a singular identity is able to get these forms of people to buy in the first place. But secondly, then, just the ability to have your strategic polarization when you do the shame in the first place. At the point ... |
I think at this point is when you shift the identity of the movement of being much more hip and cool. So sure, maybe your perception is elitist and is buying into and taking out Umar, but joining in makes you look cool. The prerequisite to join this cliché land is extremely low, and the ability to want to buy into some... |
The prerequisite is to support other females to join your feminist movement. I think especially for people on the top who have the capacity to do all of these things, joining into these specific pleasures are things that they, one, automatically want, but two, are things that they feel inclusive in joining because this... |
This is where we knock out LO as well because his framing and assertion is these elitist movements are people who invalidate feelings. So if a female comes to you and has been abused, the feminist movement is going to reject you. We tell you this is probably going to be untrue; there is still going to be a fundamental ... |
I'll take you in a bit, man. I'll take you after five. The second question that I want to answer in my speech is why is moral judgment impactful and not as harmful as the other teams posit. The first question is it unlikely that you're going to be reported or depressed? I think the point at which you shame is you cut, ... |
I think this is when you it's easy to isolate yourself from change because most people have the ability to make this change in first place therefore You can isolate and cut yourself off from shame completely at the point at which you just overcome this low threshold of joining into these perceived elite pleasures. But ... |
Firstly, education already does not work. I have a lot of speakers within this house already positive to you that, but secondly, people just do things that are approximate towards them. Meaning, if littering is something that is easy for them to do, these are probably things that they are going to do. Secondly, it’s th... |
But thirdly, it is simply that they lack the epistemic access to the outcome. I think you can probably know the outcome from education, but you are still likely going to be increasingly lacking towards the full extent of the outcome. Even if it is true that they want education and you redirect funding to education, I d... |
But thirdly, I also want to flag out what the movement looks like on the opposition as a whole because CO run an extremely negative case, and the structures and institutions are very, very hard to change. At the point at which you do this, you greenlight behaviors that are against the movement. You sit complacent and w... |
<poi> |
This is support motion based on the world manual. Opposition just needs to prove the attempt to make it worse than the status quo instead of proving change suddenly happens. Hence CG is wrong, but our CO is also wrong because bad social movement extension. Regardless of the movement, the motion forces us to show where ... |
</poi> |
Okay, even if you do want to say that the movement on your side is still something that is bad because you still greenlight behaviors that are against the movement, this is the point at which you should pivot or probably change some principles within your movement at the point where you want to have a better perception... |
But fourthly then, why is it hostile and judgmental, and why is rash extension debate-winning? Because they tell you that as precedents of loss and success, shame is a personalized perception as to how you should feel and change as an individual. Therefore, weighing on the certainty that we have past precedents of succ... |
How does your case lose out? Their case loses out as well. Their negative case is extremely simple to take out. They tell you that oppression is extremely hard to change. They tell you that the structures at the top are very hard because of capacity. I think this is very simple at the point at which we make out to you ... |
</gw> |
<ow> |
Beginning my speech in three, two, one. One point of clarification: we're not a negative case; we're a harms case. We're showing you that at the point where social justice movements are allowed to actually create and use shaming as a mechanism, they'll use it for bad things because we take a much more nuanced approach.... |
Think of how for every Black Lives Matter movement, which is a social justice movement, there is a counter-movement that is to say a right-wing answer. For example, think of Black Lives Matter: you have All Lives Matter and Blue Lives Matter. These are all social justice movements. Why? The reason why there are infinit... |
I'll get into that in a minute. One free-floating rebuttal: they tell us on CG that you need to get some level of buy-in; you need to make it as accessible as possible so people feel like they're part of the social justice movement. This is good because then you get momentum or something. This is bad because, one, you ... |
Further, they just take the small wins, like Rohan told you, where we just care about one rotten apple that’s being pushed out by the narrative by the state as a scapegoat, and then we forget all about it. Or thirdly, you just don’t actually donate; you don’t actually throw up a protest. You just feel like you’re part ... |
Three things that we gave you from the CEO: Why are these winning? First, we explain to you that shame doesn’t work on a fundamental level. Rohan gave you three strong structural reasons. One, it's incredibly hard to monitor these people; it's hard for the social justice movement to have eyes everywhere, right? Second,... |
What if a million people are going to drink Starbucks? Are you going to go have a long post that says "Ah XYZ bye"? It's just not going to be as effective as they really want to say. Third, likely, they’re just going to push out rotten apples, have a scapegoat, call it a day, and say that they won—not going to be reall... |
Second, we explained to you that buy-in is relatively symmetric. We told you that it's probably going to be likely that people are still going to go in or out based on swings of popularity rather than everything else that both opening houses talk about. But we’ll give you another mechanism here later when we talk about... |
Third, bad social justice movement. This is the most important and game-winning extension because we tell you that social justice movements are a double-edged sword. That is to say, if you want to say that these social justice movements are effective in shaming, we think that this can be used in a bad way by shaming in... |
We think that this is going to look like the state or churches or whatever other strong political powers that want to ensure that they're stronger for structural reasons. Why is it actually worse off? They have stronger incentives to do this. First, they're more persuasive. People think that the state is an authority; ... |
All these things are unclear; why do they believe one over the other? Second, it’s easier to buy in because it’s something that’s bought in by the collective, i.e., people consensus voted in the president, consensus believe in the church; therefore, they’re willing to buy into something that’s more bought into than a s... |
Third, it’s easy to say that these guys are subversive to the state. You can create, if CG wants to say something about binaries or whatever, I think that the state can easily do this by saying that these people are against the state; they are against you; we need to shame them; they are horrible individuals. |
Fourth, this is an incredibly high-impact thing in so far as this actually creates on-the-ground discrimination. It allows for things; it justifies programs that lead to job hiring discrimination that actually harms people on the ground. Even if the government is correct and you're going to be able to—like, we’re not r... |
You might have another question, which is to say, why are these movements going to have a lot more strength? Why are social justice movements going to be stronger for structural reasons? First, they’re able to access more capital. That is to say, these things are usually things like churches, schools, or politicians. T... |
Think of like scoops; think of troll farms. You’re able to change and shift the narrative because you’re able to control things like the media. That’s a second structural reason to make sure that these things seem more normalized. You’re able to flood social media with troll accounts that say that XYZ should be shamed.... |
Third, you can divide and conquer. You can say that these social justice warriors are crazy. Think of all the feminists that are being lambasted as incredibly unreasonable or as Karens or whatever. These are methods that these bad social justice movements can use to actually weaponize it and divide and conquer. OG, oka... |
<poi> |
One, all your harms suggest criticism that it's not perfect, but there's still positive utility. But number two, even if you're right that all these opponents against this movement have higher moral ground and higher political capital, then public shaming is the best way for smaller movements to counteract against them... |
</poi> |
Okay, I get you. I get you. First, we’re not saying that it’s ineffective; we’re saying that bad actors are going to use and weaponize social justice movement methods in a bad way. Second, I’m going to go explain moral high ground right now. |
That earlier I said by, oh, the third or fourth thing I want to go out before I finish is that, uh, they said that, oh, they use COVID a lot again. I'm not really sure if this is really true. First off, I think a lot of the times these people don't use this as a facility because it's imperceptible. They don't know that... |
</ow> |
<pm> |
Probably worked like this for most of the time. I think people are fine; they go to university, they have jobs, they learn quite well in the traditional sense, OO need to support radical alternatives. Cool. Three things in my speech: first, why teachers on our side of the house have the capacity to do this well; second... |
So, on teachers and their capacity to teach well, note that probably incentives exist on our side of the house to share materials and tactics and to share what works with their students. This happens because probably there are teacher assessments, right? There are school assessments—things like, "Okay, how many of your... |
Note, fourthly, that even if you have textbooks and you teach from textbooks, you can still teach in a fun way. Why is that? Because you want the kids to be receptive; you want your grades to go well. But also, secondly, because probably you're passionate about your field, right? Note that most teachers work in public ... |
Now, secondly, on the kids themselves and why they're likely to make better choices on our side of the house. Note that when you're 14, you don't really know how life goes, kind of, right? You're not sure what choices you have. On their side of the house, you have to choose a thematic theme, right? So, if you want to l... |
And I think this is worse on their side of the house. Why, or in what ways are they influenceable by parents? I think, A, there are certain norms in societies about certain professions that are more successful than others because they are paid more. So, for example, you're told, "Oh, be a doctor, be a lawyer, do this,"... |
But also, secondly, there's also a lot of pressure from parents to, like, you know, be self-sufficient, right? To leave the house, to earn your salary, to not depend on them anymore financially because they will grow old or whatnot. And in some countries, even to support them financially later on, right? This is bad be... |
Then, why does progressive education work worse? First, because of the choice you make in the student psychology, as I said. Secondly, I think the lack of supervision— I think the quality of your education gets worse the moment that the teacher only facilitates, right? So you do peer learning if you're—somebody does a ... |
<poi> |
So if I don't want to do that. |
</poi> |
Lastly, I think you have more quality education because the teacher now has the ability to give you lectures and to have studied that subject in detail versus your peers probably are not well educated in that topic. |
Okay, why is this the most important thing in the debate? First, it's about how you learn, right? So if you get more information and if you get clearer information the earlier in your life, it's good because it's at the age where you can orient yourself, right? So it's easier to make choices once you have more informat... |
</pm> |
<lo> |
Clarification at the top of my speech: the choice is not going to be absolute for the kids. Still, there are going to be topics that are going to be decided by the school curriculum, be at the general school assembly or whatever. This is true for a couple of reasons. One, you still need to cover basic topics in order f... |
They are capable, but also these specific topics, if they decide on a symmetric level, they're still able to learn about them and be more engaged. Also, in our side of the house, I'll have that more in the future. Lastly, if you have a radical change, as looks likely, there's going to be pedagogical faculties that also... |
On the point about kids, I don't think that kids have absolute choice in the topics that they have because of the exact announcement they had previously. But also, let's say they do; the comparison is the school curriculum. I still, as a kid, choose not to listen to the school curriculum if I don't find it interesting.... |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.