text stringlengths 0 9.69k |
|---|
</mg> |
<mo> |
Before moving on to my susbtantive, two points on cg. One, they have clearly knifed the opening government was trying to say. Opening government said, we're going to be morally ambiguous about whether progressive politics is a good or bad idea, cg explicitly comes up and says, progressive politics is a bad idea, they c... |
Bernie Sanders practices progressive politics, which is a bad idea. This is rooted in Cold War era beliefs of, you know, the politics of the Red Scare, McCarthyism, and so on and so forth. So even in their world where the comparative is some decentralized movement of progressive politics, they are similarly going to b... |
The first thing I want to note is how better messaging happens if you tether the movement to single people, that is icons and specific. One, notice, progressive politics is extremely difficult to explain, especially within red states or states which have lower education or are swing states, etc. , where there you have... |
will say very different things to what a senator in say California would say in their world. But in our world what we do is there's one head of the progressive movement or three or four heads and they can actually say well strategically guys we should focus on Medicare for all we should focus on the green new deal and... |
</mo> |
<gw> |
The first extension that Greg gave you is why the kinds of progressive policy that is being proposed by these icons are really bad. This beats the up bench in a couple of ways. First, oh, oh, all of their mechanisms about how you get more progressive policy with no explanation as to why they are good other than the fa... |
Right. And we need these kind of policy to solve them. Again, there are many different ways to tackle climate change, right? We can do it with a moderate carbon tax where we can do so with a green new deal. What Greg explained to you is by the progressive iterations of the solutions to these problems are extremely, ex... |
Now let's talk about the top half. First, I think that OG has this issue where a lot of their arguments are about the existence of progressive policy. Insofar as progressive policy exists, then they can get demonized. But there are two things they tell you that isn't contingent on this. The first thing they tell you i... |
<poi> |
Unless you are able to prove that the people who would not vote for Biden, who are inspired by AOC, would otherwise settle for Biden, your case has no marginal change. Somewhere between moderate Republicanism and this communist dystopia you are painting, there is a meaningful policy change that we have proven. Please e... |
</poi> |
Yeah. So I don't think it's the case that all of AOC supporters are previously non-Democrats, right? That is true to an extent. You've energized some people, right? But a lot of the times you've also attracted a lot of prevvious people who were on like far left the democratic party who would have voted around anyway ri... |
</gw> |
<ow> |
I don't want to be that sort of person but what is progressive? In America progressive is a to wear a fucking mask. In America, it is progressive to have anything past any market mechanism to resolve climate change. In America, it is progressive for people to have healthcare recognized by the United Nations as a human ... |
I'm going to say that the point at which these people aren't tethered to individual ideologies, they move towards the right. Think about it. There were strangely two people in 2016 who talked about neoliberalism being a horrible thing. Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. It's an unfortunate political coincidence within o... |
<poi> |
The problem isn't that individuals are fallible. The problem is that supporters of Bernie Sanders literally won't support Elizabeth Warren because of their personal disagreements in places like the presidential primaries. |
</poi> |
Okay, but that's literally not what happened yesterday. Like, fucking open the newspaper and they're like, I'm sorry, right? Like literally they had a fight because people argue. And then when people argue, they come to a consent. They keep literally saying they argued with each other. Yes, they did. I completely agree... |
</ow> |
<pm> |
I think the burden is kind of clear. I mean, assuming feasibility, presumably we just press a button and then animals have cognitive levels of capacity that have developed their own language or whatever. I think we should debate about the principles here rather than we're practically integrating. Of how this happens th... |
<POI> |
Matt, do you think it's morally legitimate to bring a child into the world in the middle of a war zone? |
</POI> |
Well, potentially i mean the thing is that essentially we say that like as well like animal conditions are going to improve massively as a result like that's the second argument right okay. So we think that humans are going to treat animals far better on our side of the house than on theirs, because animal rights grou... |
</pm> |
<lo> |
I just want to quickly note that most of the funny kid’s principal analysis is very much contingent on him being able to show that granting this right to animals is going to make the quality of life actually better. Right? That’s why this repetitive alteration exists; we want to make our lives better because we’ve done... |
What that means is, that you really cannot help animals, even if you somehow develop the political capital to do so. Note that I don’t think they get instantaneous political capital as well, right. At the very least, you presumably need 10 to 15 years at the point at which, like, I don’t even know if climate change is ... |
No, thank you. What that means is that even if they are right that you do develop this sort of, I don’t know, empathy, it’s going to be triggered when you cannot see the suffering and the suffering does not directly trigger your emotional heartstrings. Right? Think of this as like, uh, probably a believer in the develo... |
Right? What does that look like? The major industries that are dependent on the existence of like the destruction of habitats, right? This is like deforestation and all that sort of stuff. These industries are the ones that are going to be lobbying the government, and they have the most political capital. That means th... |
I want to win this right because they might come up here and say, “Ah, but at least we change the individual's actions. If you don’t buy some formats, here’s the thing, I don’t know why individual action matters that much.” Right. This is about what companies do, this is about what governments do. They are the biggest ... |
I think we’re talking about political actors, systemic actors, because they don’t see all this. So, on impacts, right? Because all I’ve done basically is dismitigate our taste. Now I want to increase the impacts here, because what I prove to you is that there’s going to be suffering on both sides, but I’m not going to ... |
Also, I want to note, just trivially, that animals tend to eat each other. And I think that’s a really horrifying experience. Right? I think If I went over and ate Aniket; that’d probably be really traumatic for both of us. Thirdly, though, right? I want to note that humans, I think, are also going to feel sad because ... |
I don’t think we’re a trivial operating speed, I think we provide there as well. Cool. Note that I, like, there are also social dynamics between animals. Right? That is to say that I do think that certain animals, when we think they are better than each other, and like if you have high levels of cognition, that view is... |
<poi> |
In the status quo, animals experience suffering, but it is invisible. The experience of empathy for themselves, why is this in any way asymmetrical? |
</poi> |
Presumably, you have to believe it is asymmetrical, by anything the opening government says, right. If you can already experience empathy and all these sort of things, then I don't know why any of their Guild mechanisms and stuff are going to work through any asymmetric extent. Right? You can have an opening, you can’t... |
I think one, in terms of why this fact is actually likely, animals are going to be resentful to a very understandable extent. We have treated them massively incorrectly. And secondly, like just think some humans, right? I think attacks naturally for, the issue is that as soon as one attack occurs, that’s going to be li... |
Secondly, I want to note that like, in terms of Aniket that’s going to be war against humans, I don’t know if that actually is, but I think there’s going to be a fear of revolution to the very least extent. Right? But note that this revolution is always going to be unsuccessful. These humans have technology, the animal... |
To treat them is correlated. for all those reasons, opposed. |
</lo> |
<dpm> |
Firstly, responses to OO, then the actual non-store online version of our case and why it’s going to win the debate and then the metrics by which you should judge a little bit of soft principle because I know my principles. Firstly, in responses to OO, the first thing to say is that they just assert that things like th... |
The reason they do this is because if we prove this, everyone wins. Humans benefit because we’re not, for example, fucking up the planet with methane and industrial farming. Animals benefit because they’re not in pain, which, by the way, exists on both sides because this debate is about their ability to articulate and ... |
And the tipping point that would have for how many people would consume these meats, the fact that they would compare it to cannibalism and the fact that you’ve seen the production of billions of cubic meters of this gas, the impact that, that would then have on our journey to trying to lower even marginally the averag... |
Secondly, they say in the status quo the average consumer can see the suffering but they don’t care because, like, you know, try them out for a couple of things. Firstly, this is clearly different to child labor. This is things like cannibalism, which in the vast majority of contexts in almost every context in the worl... |
So the way humans distinguish themselves they're not brutish like animals, they don't just rip heads of things. We have a higher level of ability to have compassion empathy and understanding, so being directly confronted with that and directly confronted with the idea that the very thing that makes you human is wrong b... |
But finally, I think individual action, even if we prove that, which I don’t think we do, mattered, millions of people have pets, zoos exist, and the way that humans construct their own personal choices is what feeds into capitalism. We get pushed products, yes, but nobody wants a product if it’s made of cannibalism. ... |
Okay, what was our case? Firstly, we get benefits within animal structures in terms of their behaviors and their interactions. The status quo problem is that evolutionary randomness decides the optimal behaviors which are filtered by natural selection with animals, but there are two problems with this. One, humans, and... |
But secondly, this requires a mass death of animals for natural selection to occur because it’s just the ones who happen to randomly have the right attributes to survive, human action, who are able to survive. We avoid that death when animals are aware of what is going on in the world around them. And it’s not just at ... |
It gives them the capacity to be able to organize in a way that is better able to defend themselves, and self-defense is crucial, because on both sides, animals feel pain, but the difference in this debate is the capacity for them to articulate and to do something about it. We think that is imperative. Sure. |
<poi> |
Every single person in this room walked by rows of homeless people freezing on the street to get drinks. I think the light in humanity is quite true. |
</poi> |
It’s imperative to debate. Obviously, comparatively, there are homeless people on either side. I didn’t say that everyone is, every animal is going to be considered equal. We still have certain preferences for animals in the same way that we have preferences for human beings, but that doesn’t mean that human beings get... |
Live in the comparative. Secondly, I think the interactions between humans get better ,between animals. It gets better because right now, it’s brutish and short. They have no conception of each other’s feelings, no conception of the deep societal and intimate relationships that they have with each other. I think that t... |
But actually, many animals still have the capacity to feel that thing on either side of the house. Finally, just as a point of way, animals feel pain on both sides of the house. The delta is their ability to articulate that, to be able to fight back, even if they aren’t successful in doing that. We think that is a righ... |
</dpm> |
<dlo> |
The destruction of the environment and slaughter of millions of animals does not come from evil or indifference. Rather, it comes from privileging the interests of your own community, much like indigenous people in Canada. The harms that afflict them are distant and far away and far-off reserves, much like they’ll be i... |
Thus, it is incredibly easy to turn a blind eye when it comes to our day-to-day necessities and making our own lives better. Consider here, that the extent of us being truly empathetic for animals was significant, it wouldn’t just be about eating meat. It’d be no longer being able to access medicine that comes from ani... |
Two things I want to talk about here. First, I want to discuss human empathy, and I want to talk about whether or not the lifestyles of animals are actually going to improve. Second of all, I’m going to talk a little bit about animal society. So first, on human empathy, at the top, I just want to frame this issue of co... |
But the second thing that we ended up noting, is that being able to rationalize or conceptualize your pain is entirely different. Even if it’s the case that I can feel an instinctive sadness when someone I love or care about disappears, when I can intellectually comprehend how much they mean to me, how much I care abou... |
I have four different responses here. The first thing that I want to point out is that this won’t be seen as cannibalism, as they have noted, because this is a cultural norm that we’ve already inculcated. It is normal for us to eat animals already, and that it’s going to be incredibly easy for us to view this as a norm... |
The second thing that I want to point out is that there is every incentive to cover this up, for large corporations, to ban advertising campaigns that display the suffering of animals. And you will never be able to see an actual animal face to face that has suffered and has experienced these things. Third of all, often... |
That is why we are more empathetic to those who are similar to us or approximate to us; they have similar experiences that we can then relate to. But animals will have a completely different set of lived experiences, not just in terms of their oppression but in terms of the day-to-day function that they have in their d... |
And here’s the problem, if we can conceptualize that this significantly contributes to our own destruction as humanity through climate change, it is unclear why this distant message that opening government talks about will actually influence anyone’s rationality. But aside from this argument, I also want to point out t... |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.