text stringlengths 0 9.69k |
|---|
<poi> |
So basically, most of the intrinsic value comes on downside will be non cooperatively to our side. And the ones you put are premise on non violence. Could you explain, for example, why people meeting without police get out of no violence more violence? |
</poi> |
I think the point here is that police protection. But in your word, there still be police coming to form security. The difference is they are exclusively there to protect protesters, and that in itself, is really a comparative benefit. I think you need to import. The important bit here is what is health in sexual individuals? Oftentimes, the Q lib stand for the important framing is as an LGBT person, you need to opt for one particular pride march. One is more accessible than the other. On that sense has already inherent, rather increasing benefit in the ability to access pride marches in areas where you can't at the moment, because the Q lib doesn't have that kind of reach. The second is, because it's often violent, exclusionary people who are willing, only people willing to weather the damage are the people who go there's good children, people who feel for the same. But the third reason is, by joining Q lib, you make school more, even worse, because you take the kind of people who would otherwise be voting change from the International parts of the Stonewall movement would otherwise become leaders in those areas to the Q lib March, which is not even as strong. What this means is it splinters the movement into a worse match, harder to forward the policies they want to. So at the end of this debate, what do you need to consider is very clear, we have a movement right now that's increasingly diverse, increasingly inclusionary, but doing so would do it for the worse. Thank you. |
<lo> |
<dpm> |
Pride is something that I no longer want to attend and don't see a huge benefit from going to. If I want to go to a party, gays throw a great party. I can go to a party any night of the week, and I can drink and I can dance with my friends, but if I want to go somewhere to have a genuine discussion about where the LGBT movement should prioritize its resources, what kind of policies we should go forward, how we can effectively lobby the government and achieve change? I no longer have a venue to do that, because pride has become something that it was not meant to be. It is no longer a form of protest and discussion. It's instead makes a clear way to say that we are okay with the current political establishment that Teresa May can put on a rainbow dress and say how much she loves the gays. And then that's it. Everything is sold. I've imagined a massive problem right now, and one that we need to deal with, and we can only deal with through a queer liberation March. I'm going to talk about two things in the speech. Firstly, I want to talk about what the purpose of pride is, who we care about, and how we make pride accessible for those people. And secondly, I want to talk about more about political activism and how we actually end up getting that before. I want to do a little bit of a rustle on three main lines against opening opposition. The first is in their characterization of what this March is like. And I want to say, though, people say the word assertive a lot, but this really was assertive. Somehow we meet together for a non fire protest to talk about queer issues and the police aren't there, so suddenly we're all shooting each other up like I don't see any logic as to why a non violent protest to discuss LGBT activism is going to lead to violence. If someone comes in and starts attacking people, I'm sure they will probably call the police in, as opposed to like people get stabbed. But I think it's very illogical to say how suddenly leads to violence when there's no reason given for that. The second thing is, when they try and hang a lot on their case is in saying that Stonewall and pride has changed. It suddenly become super inclusive and try to cater to niche groups. And they say that's because it's been criticized already. But the corporations who sponsor pride and inject the millions into it that allows it to become a massive event that people know about are also the ones who do not want it to cater to niche interests. For example, what is the point of you defending like black trans people who are going to make a tiny buying demographic of your group, when by doing so, you alienate the moderates who have just about got on the gay marriage trend. That's about as far as they're going to get along those lines, you obviously want to cater to the lowest common denominator group that will get you the most attention. And that's why, when you walk around any city advertising for products you don't see like, tear down the like, I don't know, heterosexual establishment that's oppressing us, or you don't see things like make companies more inclusive to LGBT people and eliminate discriminating hiring practices you can think of more casually explain that instead, you see love. Love is love. Rainbows like. Flowers, everyone dancing. You don't see any actual political messaging. Wherever you look, if you go into a department store, they just put the rainbow flag up, and that's because they want to pick the lowest pumpkin or make a message because they don't want to pick up the interest in each groups. The second thing I want to say on this is that you can't just change corporations opinions, and because they have no incentive to do that, just because you partner an ally with them doesn't mean you've any influence. Maybe you get one seat on one committee, and you can voice your opinion in a way that you couldn't before. But I think that suppose it leaves the fans of change, I think is very naive. In many cases, people will try and make small policy changes. One of the things that people love to say, parties love this, but we're going to undergo a review, and the review happens, and that's a big announcement to make it seem like you're doing change, and then a year later that things come about review and no substantial change is being made. So instead, you try and do whatever you can on social media to make it seem like you care, but you don't ever enforce any substantive policy issues, because second you do it alienate your coure base. I just do not see the incentive for any corporation or party to care about niche LGBT issues where, in this, in the format they're currently doing it, the last thing they say is Stonewall, pride can still be political. And they use one example from Pink Dot, which I think is worth noting, is not Stonewall. But secondly, I think it's worth noting. I'm not sure where the space of political activism comes at Pride, like you're genuinely too busy dancing and having fun and chatting people up, and you are to actually ever able to make those changes. |
I think what's also better about our queer liberation March is because you have more time to have political discussion, you could have a diversity of different opinions being voiced, whereas when you have limited time for discussion, you can only enforce one narrative. So I now want to deal with what is the purpose of pride. How do we care about who we care about and how do we make it more accessible? Because I think pride should always have been a political protest. It was celebrating or commemorating the community undergoing an attack and actually to survive it. Crucially, it's an event for LGBT people, and they should be almost in this, in these movements. Why? |
Firstly, because they've got a sense of ownership from history. Secondly, because there's a need and awareness for them to be able to politically engage. I think fair people, because of many people, it's just one of their first experiences with the LGBT movement. If you live in like a rural area, pride might be the first time you've ever met someone from from your community and had a chance to experience and engage in that why is pride no longer safe and accessible for many people? Firstly, because I think corporations have tried to make it an alcohol fueled party. If you look at who attends now, it is predominantly CIS, white gay men who are also the most accepted by the media and most accepted by corporations, who major corporations were put across in their social media propaganda with pictures of or it's attractive again, cis white lesbian couples as well, who also seem to be people that companies want to push forward. Those are the kind of people who are now likely to attend. I also know having many friends who've experienced sexual harassment at Pride, who have found it because the toxic alcohol at this PHP and incredibly difficult environment surviving it, I know many people who no longer feel comfortable in going. Secondly, the political parties and corporations can attend in a prominent capacity. Many people feel that it's inaccessible. If you've got a right wing political party who have structurally voted against LGBT rights. It's very hard for you, since you're safe going to a march for those people are marching with a pride flag now. |
<poi> |
So the problem with this speech is that all the descriptions of pride is potentially correct. But the problem is, what is it? What are structural reasons why the Q lib movement March is better than the current situation? |
</poi> |
I think we've made that very clear, you can engage in political activism, but if you look, there will not be corporations there, so there won't be the same incentive to make it into a drunk Pride March. Like, I know, the way of describing the intro slide did not make it seem like it was going to be a big party. It made it seem like it was going to be like, no corporations, probably not a lot of alcohol, not a lot of money spent on things about political discussion, about political activism, like otherwise we're not debating two different things. |
So say, secondly, I want to deal with the impact, how we manage to lead to political activism. Because I think that pride is a unique forum, to be able to engage people and to be able to lead to political activism, and that's a very key important part of it. It's also a chance we were able to enroll in other organizations or groups. And I think crucially, it's a way to show the government we’re not happy with the status quo, that right now, the policies they're putting forward aren't good enough. Whereas I think a world where pride is about celebration and it's just about being happy and fantastic, isn't a chance to launch those kind of criticisms. So what kind of policies we need? We can launch at these kind of avenues. We can talk about who we want to help. But it isn't just the track of people who appeal to the media. It is dealing with issues that are more contentious. It is even, for example, with making it easier to change your gender and maybe giving children better access to be able to transition, those kind of things that are controversial the media don't want to talk about, but crucially, they cannot get it a pride, and we're only able to get that in a political way when we have a queer liberation March and very hard to oppose |
</dpm> |
<dlo> |
The naive characterization of the queer liberation movement loses the opening government this debate, there are two facets that characterize the queer liberation movement, structurally and we told you this and they got no response. |
The first is that they were overwhelmingly divisive in the way that they manifest. Because I want to note here the amount of frustration that people of color and the queer movement historically tell towards their white counterparts in the way that they manifested. So the way that this occurred two years ago, when cops entered a bar and this movement kicked off in the first place, was to deny rich and white people access to those movements in that instance, the next point at which escalated is based on racial tensions. When this year, a brawl erupted between hispanic and black men will sort the queer liberation movement in the first place. This is empirically true, but I'll give you the structural reasons for it in a moment. |
The second thing that we told you is that these movements were overwhelmingly violent. There was a danger to your life, overwhelmingly there was an enormous amount of rage, and there's very limited incentive to moderate that is important and will be in my two issues of Republic. |
The first is on the policy argument of opening government. I want to know here just how grossly uncomparative this argument is coming from opening government. They make two claims. |
The first is that there is no clear message that comes out of the pride movement in the first place. I want to reject that this is false, for the reason that Raza gives you, which is every movement and every interview that is given at the pride movement has a specific theme. This year, it was to help the black people of color in that queer movement who had not been enfranchised in the first place. And the reason they do that is the very after they wanted to bash it is because corporations overwhelmingly want to reach out to a group that has enormous volumes in labor of good capacity to buy goods and services, but also to increase the number of people in disenfranchised groups, such that the number of people within the five the five March increases. This is a self correcting mechanism, because to increase the number of disenfranchised people, you have to cater to their needs, and that's what the private Movement has done. The second thing I'm going to note here is the comparative, which is, they say, and this is literally an assertion, that you get clear messaging from a movement that is deeply divisive, that is made up of 40 different disenfranchised groups of queer people, and therefore you come up with a clear direction, even if you do, which is very unclear, given there are a lot of conflicting interests within the queer liberation group as it stands, that message is likely to be antagonistic, it's likely to be violent, and it's likely to have that division within that because you have to prioritize the range of different groups above others, as opposed to the celebratory theme that we told you undergirds that pride month in first place. |
The second thing they say is that there is less discussion generally of policy issues. I want to note here. This is the unique benefit of their cyber house, and so bizarrely small that I think they lose on this basis, because they had to prove that that policy discussion manifested in something, and it was unclear why that the amorphousness of that did. Let me tell you why it did it. The first is that the queer liberation movement did not have that much power in the first place. It did not have the corporations sponsoring it during electoral campaigns. It did not have the rich money of the gay rich white men that Matt wanted to talk about in the last speech. It did not have the vehicle that was expected, accepted by the public as the mainstream paradigm for what the queer community should look like and the legitimacy back here. So even if you had discussions, it's unclear if you could outsource them. |
The second thing that we said was that it was more likely to be divisive. In the first instance, the vast majority of the QRP actually does not support gay marriage because they think it is a heteronormative institution that's hugely divisive to the 1000s of men and women who have been married in same sex couples over the years. The second year, there is a blame game that is played that white people are antagonized. They're the people who stole that money and keep us down within their movement. The last thing that we showed you is that the perceptions are bad. This under does this under does the huge strides we've made on simulation, where people feel that people like myself or anyone else are just normal people in the community, that you can live side by side. They become they are seen as an angry movement, as one, as they do currently violently march the streets, or do so with rage, do so with with signs that say, bring down white patriarchy, as opposed to the celebration that exists. So even if they get policy discussion, the way that people perceive that policy discussion is not useful, because they don't take it. To the ballot box. |
The second thing they say is that this is exclusionary, and they say there's no incentive for corporations to include this. The first is, I'm going to reject this in the first place, because it's literally just an assertion. We think that the huge strides the LGBTQ community has made in terms of getting things like gay marriage, in terms of the perceptions of people in Liberal cities, and overwhelmingly, these are liberal countries with liberal consumer bases. It means that this does not, does not do as much harm as the open government team says. The second thing that we told you is like you don't need to antagonize like you don't need to overly overtly say that we are supporting trans people. To help trans people, you can support the pride movement. They now get, for example, a seat on your board, and you can suddenly influence the process of corporations through that. The third thing that we said is that it is unclear why you need policy discussion for these fears in the first place. The problems of the black queer community can be done in the focus groups of specific movements that cater to their pains and their suffering. That is the queer element of the Black Lives Matter movement. We proved that there are different avenues through which you can push in an in a non divisive way, your interest. But crucially, we proved that this was a movement that allowed you to celebrate your identity, to have that affirmation, and no other avenue exists. So you have to pick one, and I'll take our opening in a minute. |
At best, you had some conversation, but there was huge division and an undoing of the perceptions of LGBT people that you needed to get that policy change versus under outside of class, less discussion, but foot in the door, or boardrooms, where there is a normalization of trans people, where there is the capacity to enjoy and above your identity and other avenues could raise you from push policy. |
At the end of that, ask yourself, who's coming up ahead. It's clearly opening opposition, hoping government. |
<poi> |
Yet your characterization of what these countries are like is liberal, already accepting, already incredibly tolerant, when the LGBTQ community has already made massive inroads. If that's the case, you need to take that one step further and advocate for changes to the system, rather than the previous message of toleration. |
</poi> |
Yes, and we can do that by saying the current system is intolerant, and therefore we should change the system. What you do is antagonize your systems and say you want to bring them down in totality, which means you're far less likely to get the support you need at the end of that, I want to tell you what this actually looks like on the ground. |
It is a quiet movement that allows you at the end of it, even if you disagree with that prior movement, it is one that is powerful, and we would rather have your preferences reflected on it, rather than a powerless movement. We would have young queer people who do not know there's an enormous queer community that is cohesive and resilient to be able to actualize that we wanted them to be able to be seen by the broader community as people have legitimate identities, the pride movement uniquely did that whilst not undoing the benefits that the LGBT community has brought. That's why I'm proud to stand in opening opposition. |
</dlo> |
<mg> |
We’re going to win this debate by telling you that the stronger March. It's particularly bad because it excludes people who are difficult in normal life to participate in this kind of March, to go to the marches, to participate from the debate and to get included in the community. But first, let me do three things. First, out of it, of frame, you can literally not adjudicate this debate from the opening half they claim the queer thing is one thing. They claim it's another thing. They both depend on. Where's the place you believe this happening if you believe this UK, probably they win. If you don't believe this UK, it's another place, probably they win. Because they both depend on the characterization and assertions that they may not have. Is this protest manifestation happening? What we're going to do is not depending on that, giving you the incentives are irrelevant of the country in the world where it happens, it excludes most of the people. |
Second thing before our arguments on over impacting in this debate, the most likely thing, is that none of them proves real impact in this debate. Because probably it is true that in both sides, we have people having riots and manifestations which bring attention, probably both sides to change policies. And probably none of us is going to prove to you which of us is going to bring more attention. Because probably both sides bring attention. What is also true for a point is that our is vastly non comparative to this debate. They say, look, here you have a date in which you include yourself in the manifestation. And it is true. What it is not true is what they make the argument depend on, which is that their way of presenting the riot the manifestation is violent. They never gave a single region. While beyond the assertion why this is violent, might give you an analysis on why the absence of police is not enough to claim less violence, but there's more reasons which are structural, regardless of the war or in the country. Believe there's reasons why, regardless not police, you don't want to have that bad things. You don't want to have badness. First, because this day in which you want to include yourself with the rest of the community. Second, because you actually want to claim things now. Third, actually because it's the day in which you want to participate with others, along you and with you. What we say is you have particularly no incentive to make this a bad day, even if there's no police. Your incentive is to put the best day possible, because you want to meet with your own community. |
At the end of the day what we say no, CG, is that regardless of the world in which you live in, which you did you did to this debate, we think that it's much more likely that the people that don't usually go to these riots go in their side. Why is there a case? |
First because excludes you to politicization. Look, there's good reasons to believe that regardless of the country or the world in which you live in, there's politicization of this march first, what does the politicians do with this march? For example, Podemos in Spain, civica in Greece, they claim that this manifestation is good. That is the only way to defend the protest. They get invited to do speeches within the manifestations. In Juarez, which is a politician from Spain, which leads podemos party, make the opening statement of the march, which is, by the way, the most biggest march in the world, know, and he made the speech of the opening statement. This punctured the match political parties of the left normally puncture this much. They even claim in the elections that the only ones to support the gay the LGBT community, what do the right party are? Do they directly oppose the March as a consequence of the left is supporting it, or they passively say that those people are just weird? The logical Coronavirus This is that even if the march is something that I agree with, the moderates tend to ignore it because it's perpetuating supported by people who they don't agree with, they don't feel that they have a way to empathize with them because of the people who are promoting the right. |
So our point is, regardless of the country we want in which you believe in, the incentives of the left exist to go to these parties because they claim they are the way to defend those rights. And that leads to moderate Open Services, more to joining these marches as a consequence of this, we think that this is particularly bad, no because the like the left or the people that already go to those March, they'll continue going whatsoever to those marches because they already activated as protesters. Those who are not activated as protests, those who don't go, will never go if they keep pushing from the light that left wing. No, that's the first reason there's politicization. That is bad. |
But the second reason why it is bad at excluding people is because it's close those same people, the moderate to go due to the maximum participation. Aim Trent told you something weird, which is the corporations fund this intense, they push for motivation. I don't see how. I don't know how they say maximum participation is good and the way that you achieve is good too. We say it is not. There's several reasons why. When you aim to maximum participation, you bring back things. Note that even if we like. Can see here that we have some less participation that is probably irrelevant to the achieves of getting people. We mean not 1 million, maybe, but 800,000 that is relevant to the impact of the overall progress. Why do we think that when you bring many people into the riot, you do things that are bad |
First, the way you approach to it is to commercialize the manifestation. No, you bring a big parties, big teachers, big people to say that the manifestation is good. You bring alcohol. You bring weird stresses. You make like contest. Who is bringing the weirdest stress? Who is the biggest symbol in our riot? Who is, I don't know, you make things in order to provoke people from participation. Olo gave you great reasons on how they do that. The point is, they failed to see. Who are they getting mobilized, which is the ones that were already supporting the LGTB movement, the ones that would already go, yes, if I'm a person who already empathize with the movement, and then you give me free alcohol, I will go there. Now I'll go there. But the point is, but doing this, you exclude models from going, |
Why is this true? Because they don't empathize with that. They see, they feel that those people that Obrador, even if they share things with them, as in their LGTB, they don't feel persuaded by the way those things are presented. They say, I am not going to see like those weird dresses over there. This is good reason why the old age cases when they say we don't go to these marches, this is reason because people who are moderate, most times don't go to these things because they perceive them to be eccentric. They perceive them to be something weird promoted by a left piece in which, at the end of the day, they serve nothing with this is only because of the thing that they promote this maximum participation in the stone world. |
At the end of this debate, you'll probably believe that in both sides, people keep going to the marches, but we bring something unique, which is that the people that usually didn't know in our world, they have more easiness to go. Those are the most important debates, because they are the ones who get mobilized the other way already, That's what we’re going to debate. Thanks |
</mg> |
<mo> |
It took 50 years of courage and 50 years of blood to get to the point that you could have a gay US presidential candidate, that you could have a Supreme Court affirm the rights of LGBT people, that you could have the UK legalize gay marriage. It seemed audacious to me that having come so far and achieved so much, that the stance of the government bench was to say, we don't want those politicians there. We don't want the awareness the important thing in society. We don't want the money. We don't want the visibility. We want to go back to sitting in a corner where people do not have to look at us. We want to argue with ourselves when a lot of the structures they reliable said they were trying to build already existed. What I want to do in this speech is ask something that has not been asked in this debate, namely, what are the political challenges going forward that actually face the LGBT community across the world, and what, therefore, is the best format of the pride we take to face those challenges? I want to talk about two things, politics and history before that, though, I want to very briefly about two things from the government then, |
First of all, opening government very poorly to their case, center on the idea that we need these marches to be a nexus of political discussion that currently pride in its form does not allow for an advanced discussion about what movement should aim for and what it should fight for most strongly, and that is the thing that we have lost. I have noticed that all of those formats of discussion already exist. The Stonewall foundation exists. There are ethical auditions. There are charities to do these things. I appreciate in the 60s, when pride began, these foundations did not exist and observed pride, therefore an important function in that respect. But they do not live in the world we have today. Those important discussions, those dialogues, those judgments about strategy and direction can already occur, regardless of which side, especially in one so I think most of the opening government case falls apart to deal with closing government and the notion of politicization. |
I think there is a decent incentive, first of all, right wing politicians to also come to these events and stand up and get the same sort of vote gaining opportunities. I mean, they would, for example, not be able to explain how the Tory party went from supporting section 28 in the span of, like, 30 years to being the party that introduced gay marriage in the UK. The reason is that it's not as though all right wing parties are monoliths that will never look towards different opportunities to get vote. And as long as that, there's no incentive to them to reach out private movements. For exactly the reason the opening government gives you they claim more strong, more palatable to people, are far tailoring safe things for a lot of right Polish right wing politicians to take on board, and that's the reason they come on. The same thing is, like it was a bit boring to say that, you know, there would be less right wing. Stick for the like, radical like, you know, gay March that was, like, hidden away than there would be for the average LGBT March. I think a lot of the damage they talk about is realistically pretty symmetric substantive. |
First of all, political change. I want to know that the first thing I asked open government was to name the extreme political changes they're facing, and what we got in response was radio silence. I promised that DPM would tell us and then nothing subsequently. What are the actual things that the LGBT community faces early on? A lot of the challenges were very non-adversarial towards the straight community for exensis pushing for gay marriage does not diminish the institution of marriage for straight people, violent or does not need to come into their home. But a lot of the subsequent change of things that will put very well burdens on the straight community, or at least force them into prominence in a way that not previously was the case. |
For example, having education in the school where your child might be educated about what gay people are and the way they lead their lives and why they should accept them, or having to have government funding of things like transition surgery. These are things that put real pressure on straight people and are far more difficult to sell. If the movement that is trying to sell these things to you is an extreme one that doesn't want to interact with community that lives on the fringes of society. I think it is for that reason that the incremental steps forward for the LG community are more difficult ones, that it's exactly the wrong way to step back and say, We need to be more radical. We need to be less involved. |
What are the benefits that you get on our side? Cast first of all, politically, I think it's staggering that no one has pointed out there is a tremendous value of having politicians marching pride and be very visible when someone like Pete flier or like Penny Wong from Australia, he's at the front of these Pride marches, he very essentially both acts as a platform to discuss, like what political parties are going to do for LGBT stuff going forward, and it also makes them accountable to the extent that political parties, as opposed to governments, will affiliate themselves with the cause of LGBT because that is a Burma, because these things are so prominent and so wash. That means those parties do face accountability. They have to make some kind of trade off and actually push the quality that might lose, put some votes on margin to other categories of people. If these marches are invisible, if there is no selling point, no media coverage, no reason to think these people are damaging to you, if you ignore them, there is no reason why politicians will have the same incentive to get involved. |
The second reason why this wouldn't is it just builds connection between political institutions and LGP institutions, the fact that politicians marginal pride and the political groups want to organize and be involved in the running of these things mean there is communication with people who have all the complicated discussions as to what the strategy of an LGBT movement should be. And those political parties, they lose that political connection, that political infrastructure on their side, but they make it again. It's something that is hidden away that does real damage to their capacity to win those sort of backroom deals or the sort of discussion that realistically is the way the politics functions. If you want to make these incremental steps, you need to be willing to play that game or run away from it. |
The second thing I want to talk about is funding. Now, to reiterate, obviously, you know, a lot of visibility just provides for like, is it a flamboyant event? Is it going to get on television, but a lot of people want to watch it. I think the important thing to notice here is that, yes, I agree. There are some differences in various countries between what the LGBT movement should aim for and what it can realistically achieve. But to the extent that pride remains like international watching a very visible and prominent thing, it's had influence and scope. Beyond the only individual countries where those marches run. It's become your synonymous with people in countries who might not have those foundational rights saying, Well, that is a place where I people like me exist. I can be proud of that, and we're not going to go away. They would take that away from the community, take no thank take that platform, that ability to point to very common examples of important politicians in other societies, important people in our society, standing up and saying, I'm not afraid of the things that you're saying going to tear down our society, and they would replace it with a march that is invisible by its nature, and refuses a large category of people. The second thing I want to talk about is history and symbolism. |
<poi> |
Right now we agree there is an event to cater to LGBT groups, but with pride, all you do is put a rainbow on and have bland policies and say nothing when we advocate for queer policies in a political way, you don't have to adapt to those changes, because right now you just a rainbow, as they identify with policies? |
</poi> |
I think you're conflating not being over the top but being bland, with the political activism that you push for. It is not true that just because you make pride something that is more palatable to people, that is a better optical appearance, you forgot those things, as long as those are stonewalls forgotten. We write that wants to fight for the people running these marches, the people marching from these volumes, have forgotten the things that they care about. It's they're choosing to use the leverage and the visibility to stand in that discussion, to stand there, rather than hiding away and presuming that shouting from the margins is likely to get you something. The last thing I want to talk about is history. I think that an important point of pride is the thing I touched on before, which is that it's a symbol of hope. You know that people from all walks of life can come together be LGBT, and that is like they can be proud and succeeded, and more importantly, it's a reminder of how far this community has come and what has achieved over the last few years. Now, Matt may have better gay parties than he wants to go to. That's not the case for everyone in society. There are many people who don't have that opportunity, and to sacrifice that one rallying point, that reminder that it gets better, which is an important thing to like, save lives realistically for people who live in very difficult and struggling circumstances, all for the same again, of a radicalization and very little political gain, seems a tragic thing to do. Look, we exist, and we're not going away with the rally inquiry movement to gain people around. Old rights in love and life for like, the last 50 years. Who would be tragic to throw that away because the government bench found like the Barclays pride flag on their like the corporate marketing is a bit tacky. |
</mo> |
<gw> |
You probably do have realized that in this debate, every team has a completely different characterization of this demonstration, and that probably to have to adjudicate the debate in which characterization is more like realistic and fits better with the world. And Tony told you that these demonstrations are completely controlled by left wing parties, and that therefore the people of the moderate and right will be excluded. No real engagement with this. I am going to engage why this is the most likely standard. |
First of all, as Antonio told you this demonstration has been organized by the left wing parties since the beginning of the movement, since the 60s or 70s in which this demonstration has started to take place. The organization were part of the left wing party, which were the only one which has sent the gay people. So therefore, for many years, they are in the organization and within the the the core of the movement which is organizing this demonstration, they are continuing, doing so by tradition and because they have these pieces. |
Secondly, because within the political parties of the left there is groups which are supporting the LGBT movement. I mean, in the left wing parties, you have groups of LGBT people. And with some exceptions, in most of the red wing parties, for example, in Spain or in German or in Italy, gay people does not organize within the right wing parties because they are not well accepted inside. Therefore, it's these parties which have the we have the possibility to put pressure in order, not yet into put pressure in and to control the LGBT community. And sadly, because in most countries in the world, the LGTB voters usually vote the left wing parties, and therefore they have a huge incentive in doing, to get involved in this, in this, in this circle for these reasons. I think that entrenched characterization is by far the most important for Bucha. A couple of examples. Madrid and San Francisco are the two biggest demonstrations in the world for LGTB movement. In those two demonstrations, it's more than 1 million people every year. And you know what? For the past two years in Manila, San Francisco, Red Wing candidates are bound for the demonstration as public people. That means that they cannot attend as part of the party, popular artworks or filanos and like trumpists in San Francisco, because they are not allowed in demonstration, they can go actually because that they cannot go as political people, that means that the only speeches political related that you are going to receive are the ones of the of the left parties and are the ones which control the demonstration. We think that this is extremely important for many reasons, not yet. |
The most important is that you are excluding 50% of the population, 50% of the TB movement for this demonstration, as this is like a biological thing. You have, like 50% of the people, which is from breaking which are not represented, but that demonstration, they feel that they are too extravagant, that they are left, that they are all that they hate, but also gay and them. So they are not going to feel part of that movement at all. We think that somehow it's going to rebuttal the entire case of the opposition, because they say, Hey, we need politicians to be there. And we say, okay, but what's the point? What's the change that they're going to achieve, if only politicians involved, and the only attention that you're going to get is the people which are already supporting the NPT movement. These people are already knowing the vote that they have. |
Now as the counterfactor, what we think that the queer demonstration is going to be, as we say it's going to be, what in the hell is the incentive for a job? For some reason, as open say, violent gay supporter of or fighting for their rights, going to change the demonstration if they are already controlling the mainstream demonstration. They are part of the of the student parties. They are already happy with the Strava that this movement is why can they will change the demonstration they are controlling. They are the actual organizer of the great bride, imaginative facial emerging. They organize this demonstration while you can with the change and go to the queer one. We think that the most natural thing to happen is that the queer one, it will be constructed as an opposition to the main one. And therefore the moderate people, the right wing people, the people which is not happy with being in the same demonstration, which are extremely committed, will go to another, to this other demonstration. So what we think would happen. Is that in our world, we are promoting much more in position, because in the world we have only that part of the population participating, being really strong and having some attention of the black politicians. In our world, we have a lot of population which not with never engaging with the LDP movement. Now really engaging when we think that this is the impact which Antonio brought to this debate, is that which is more important to need the movement is to be transversal, to be in both sides of society, both right and left. And which is more important is to have all these people working together and feeling part of the same movement, and therefore being happy with fighting for the A right. |
Now second point here why we think that we have more change in the long term in our side of the what they say is that because we have politicians and all the stuff there, we have more awareness and more money, and therefore we change more things. First of all, I think that this is kind of Uber impacting. We think that one demonstration is not going to change at all the way that politicians see the politics and they are not going to put an law or another law because of that. I think that the funding that they receive as not forgive. We think that the key things that change politics are a long term lobby, which we think is symmetrical in this, in this debate. But second and more important, deep political calculation, why is a right wing party going to allow a right gay, right gay,no sorry I have no time, the only, the only reason is because they think that this is a good calculation for voting, that they are not going to lose both but win votes if they do so, we think that this is much more likely to happen in the electorate. The people, which both these parties are going to be are we talking? |
<poi> |
Look, in the eyes of a conservative person,the extreme left will always be associated with an antagonistic march like you did, because you support your policy. If you're a conservative person, which March would you genuinely go to? One is associated , or one that's not associated? |
</poi> |
I think I explained for all my speech why the one which is associated with extreme left is the the mainstream one, the strong war or whatever one, because it's the one which is controlled by the left for the entire for the entire period of time. |
So as I was saying, the way that the red wing parties are going to change things if they think that the voters are okay with that, and that will happen if the gay voters of these platforms are engaged with the LGT movement. They feel comfortable going through demonstration. They feel that they have also any space within the LGT movement. And therefore, when the politician has to vote for rape, for forgiving rights, they would then they would think it's dispute or bad for the next election, and they probably think that this is good. We think that is massively more important than having a little bit more funding or to having, like, a little bit more publicity. Impressed. We think that you know what we have in we're engaging with the 50% of the population which is more necessary to have rights for these people, which is the people which is already not engaging with LGT movement, which is the people moderate already. And we get that inside of the house, making this process more transversal. Thank you very much. |
</gw> |
<ow> |
By end of this debate, I'm genuinely unconvinced that any of the other three teams have a path forward to end the oppression of the gay body, because Opening Government wants messaging without any degree of being able to implement that messaging in real politics. Open opposition knows that the killer movement is incredibly divisive. It gives us no path forward in terms of how we actually change things, reform things. And CG talks about engagement without ever explaining to you the value of that engagement. I want to address these concerns in two different things. First, I'm going to talk about political change. In fact, while I want to talk about inclusion in the marches, I'm going to explain on why each metric we've beaten every other team in this round to begin with, on political change. |
This was the primary claim that we got from the opening government team. And the clip that we got here was that you cannot antagonize straight allies and corporations in mainstream pride as a consequence of these corporations funding you and straight allies being a part of the movement. I want to note a few different things. The first thing I want to note is a very important observation from job, which is that discussion in this debate is symmetric, because you can talk about all of your policy concerns within Stonewall therefore, the more common question, I thank you, is how this kind of strategic thinking is actually brought to the public. And the observation that I want to make here is, first of all that Q lib is unlikely to reach the masses of people which are necessary for political change. If their side is about making people within the movement to wear that's possible on both sides of the house, but if the debate is about actually making sure that we normalize these messages and getting it accessible to the public. You need to make sure that straight allies are there. That's a large corporate event where many people are attending and watching, so that's where they lose no thank you. |
The second thing that I want to point out is that significant numbers of corporations are actively looking for queer messaging. This is a buyer's market. These are people. Who are gay, billionaires like Peter Thiel are relatively liberal. Companies like RuPaul drag race, all these different types of organizations are properly likely to be willing to fund these Stonewall 50 by asking for any significant changes. So it's completely unclear by all companies as monolithic as they suggest. |
The third thing that I want to point out is that there's a massive tension within the opening government case, because on the one hand, they say companies don't want to endorse something that is controversial and because they're conservative, but on the other hand, they also say that these are crazy sex, crazy parties, which have lots of alcohol, something that conservative people would presumably also oppose. So I'm not really sure what opening government believes. I think the more plausible reality is that companies don't really care that much about how pride presents itself, and as a consequence, we get all the policy reforms and all the no thank you messaging that they want on their side of the house. But let's finally draw comparative because I think it's very important to note that there is very little engagement with material that came out from John's speech, because, as we identified, this is not the place for policy change, as we noted, protests now deal with more difficult acts of oppression to sell to the public. This is oppression which is either more subtle or something that is more oppositional. So say things such as funding transition surgeries can the unfortunate thing that we need to do is get significant ties between institutions and individuals that you can get those back door deals never abutted by the closing government team. That we need to get politicians to actually endorse and assimilate within this messaging. They need to have a platform to actually spread the message, but also be held accountable. The response that we get from closing government on this is that these parties are already left, so it's meaningless to actually have them participate. But the issue is this allows us to push it further to the left. Thank you. That in the Democratic nomination race, the person who comes up and gives a more liberal speech is more likely to get gay votes, and that means that you're more likely to shift the political spectrum to the left within the mainstream, like in the primaries of the Democrats, and actually get substantive change as such. I think we get massive political benefits, particularly from being able to assimilate with mainstream political institutions. And I think because we're better able to understand the random historical art of pride that makes it easier to sell. So for instance, the historical connotation with Stonewall 50 no thank you makes pride seem a lot more pressing and a lot more important given the pressure that occurred in the past. |
Secondly, on inclusion, we have two different claims about safe spaces. I'm going to deal with the opening government claim, first, the claim from open government, sure |
<poi> |
the queer liberation March and expressions of pain better highlight at suffering the population than a hemistic party, and give politicians clear issues have to deal with your version of pride observes issues from non listed tokenistic contributions with useless money for alcohol. |
</poi> |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.