text stringlengths 0 9.69k |
|---|
The second thing they say is that this helps the gang leaders absolve their image. Like, guys, I want to be very clear: these people, the gang leaders, are untouchable. Like, most of these people have levers of power we cannot comprehend. They will do what they do regardless and not have remorse or problems of conscien... |
Right, and lastly, when they say people are going to rat out, you know, in the long term decrease crime. Like, in a lot of instances, you can't rat out. Like, it's difficult to identify. You have to work with rumors; you have to, you know, sort of like predict and take the risk of writing someone out, but then that per... |
<poi> |
Your second argument is true, and they care about what the church means to the family. Your first argument about relation can’t be true, given that people that get resources then die from the shootings, which is true and why? |
</poi> |
No, like, they are—these things are not mutually exclusive. Like, it’s really simple: the church requires a lot of resources from the gangs. That's important because it keeps a lot of people alive. Simultaneously, the situation is such that a lot of people die. These things can coexist; it’s like they can both say ther... |
Lastly, then they say people are going to be able to fight them all for the very same reasons why CG is like doesn’t have, doesn’t get to claim this extension. They can’t because the mob genuinely has a monopoly on the warfare, a monopoly on being toxically skilled, which the people don’t have. Like, the people don’t h... |
Finally, then, notice that OD gets modeled and how much this is likely to lead to individual deterrence irrespective of this decision. I don’t care about that that much. I think the scope for violence that is here is huge, right? Because they have very little to lose. If risks are as high as golf puts them in, like the... |
For all of those reasons, you know, |
</ow> |
<pm> |
how would this be done? I think this is quite straightforward. If I'm not mistaken, this has been done in Singapore with quite good results so far. So, firstly, when buying housing, it has to represent, like, the area in which you buy a house has to be made up out of a certain percentage. You'd probably have, like, whi... |
And what you do with them, if they're historically white or historically Arab, you probably provide incentives for people to move to more ethnically diverse neighborhoods in order to meet up this, uh, proportion. Secondly, if that doesn't work, you probably go through a state agency that helps you move. You receive com... |
In terms of new neighborhoods, probably when you build them, you set these percentages and you don't let people move in when that cap is reached, and you wait for other people to come in. I'll take you in a second. You wait for other people to come in until the percentage is fulfilled. I'm happy to take the clarificati... |
<poi> |
The motion says requires, which means it is mandatory; you cannot give an incentive. This is, you must move people by force if necessary; they don't content. |
</poi> |
Yeah, yeah, the model just explained that there are several steps, right? You financially incentivize them. If they're not happy with that, you help them. You, like, have to move, but you help them through the agency. This is fine. I want to preempt this. Obviously, there's a trade-off; we'll say there is a trade-off w... |
It's not like you choose necessarily to live in the neighborhood where the most people are Arabs, just like you. You're mostly down there, and you have to choose there because that's the only way you get housing, because otherwise the people who sell you the house would refuse to sell you in a white neighborhood. Opp. ... |
It actually allows more choice because, as a white person, you can always choose where to live. As a narrow person, you very rarely get to because you’re usually confined to the ethnic neighborhood because other people wouldn't sell strategically. Which minorities might move to better neighborhoods than their poor, the... |
So you have an equalizing of the kind of accumulated wealth of the neighborhoods, and this comes in crucial in the first economic argument. So the product, the premise here is simple: the neighborhood you live in is the prerequisite for wealth accumulation and moving up the social ladder. Yes, surely short term, the ma... |
I'm happy to take the, you know, small, the short term maybe unclean clarity as long as long term you have more equalizing of opportunities. So why is your neighborhood the primary means of wealth accumulation? One, it influences how much your house costs, right? Market fluctuations, if you own your house, allow you to... |
Thirdly, in terms of transport and how much and how well your neighborhood is connected to other areas of your city, it gives you access to services or to jobs further away. Thirdly, it gives you access to better schools. Education, not white people or the rich majority in those cities usually get access to all of thes... |
What happens, like, long term or medium term in five years, in 10 years, in 20 years when you equalize them again? Happy to take the trade-off. Why specifically living together helps with networking, for example? One, because you probably fight together with your neighbors for projects pertaining to, I don't know, havi... |
Secondly, your children grow up with people from diverse ethnic backgrounds. You see announcements for jobs in a neighborhood that is, you know, more diverse. There are more wealthy people, so more announcements are likely to be announced on the walls in your neighborhood. You have companies move there because there's,... |
But secondly, this is not contingent on anything. You get better access to healthcare and education. I think this is crucial. They’re funded by local money, not completely, at least partially funded by local money. The reason why white neighborhoods in America have better schools and better healthcare is because all of... |
So basically, they just cater to themselves, which means that when you equalize them and you have people of different ways coming in, the richer ethnic category brings extra taxes, and it benefits everyone that moves into that neighborhood. Which means, obviously, that we get access to better schools. If that might mea... |
Secondly, in terms of healthcare, better-equipped hospitals, which means that you're less likely to die of an infection or you can access healthcare more quickly. This means that your illness doesn't get worse, and you don't have to pay for a lot of meds to take care of you; you actually get to treat it early on in you... |
Because now you don't have to fight your entire neighborhood for the food stamps, but you can access them. There’s likely to be, you know, better paying food stamps because there’s more money per aggregate in your neighborhood. So irrespective of backlash, irrespective of whether or not you get along with your children... |
As an intuition pump, this is, which means that I'm happy to take off some micro-discrimination if this breaks the deadlock of poverty and allows better access to improving your situation. This is also relevant politically, right? Because you cannot anymore create slums that electorally ignore, as politicians do a lot ... |
great. |
</pm> |
<lo> |
starting in three, two, one. Two things in the speech: firstly, why this disrupts people's lives in the short run, and secondly, why this is just generally bad for people's quality of life in the long run. Rebuttal will be integrated. Firstly, why is this incredibly disruptive to people's lives in the short run? Note t... |
And even though they say the word "help," I think this does just Look like forced relocation. It does look like government agents showing up to your house, telling you that you have a certain amount of days to leave your household and move to an entirely new neighborhood. I think this forcible relocation is incredibly ... |
Firstly, I think you just lose access to a community that is incredibly important to you. Note that often these communities tend to be very concentrated with one individual ethnic group, which are very valuable to that ethnic group for a variety of reasons. You have community ties; you feel safe leaving your children p... |
Secondly, though, often you just live in certain areas because they suit your skill set and the job you have. For example, certain people who are farmers have skills in farming and very little else; they're likely to live in agricultural areas. Certain people who are fishermen, who have skills in fishing and very littl... |
Finally, you often settle in culturally relevant areas. Note that in certain religions, i.e. like Orthodox Jews will often live close to a synagogue because they are not let because they are not allowed to work or drive a car on Shabbos, and consequently, they need to be proximate to a synagogue in order for them to en... |
I think on their side of the house their side of the house, people lose this community and are unable to access a variety of benefits that it brings to them. Secondly, um to them I think this is a fairly severe impact, insofar as insofar as it means people lose their job, they lose a community that enables them to do a... |
Secondly, in societies with ethnic tensions, because I don't just think that this happens in places in places where people are fairly peaceful, I think this leads to violent clashes. I think majority groups who live in these regions or other ethnic groups are often frustrated that members of their group have been moved... |
I think what this means is that you're likely to get outright violence and clashes in certain neighborhoods where there are likely to be ethnic tensions. I think this is very severe. Right? Note that the government bench can't just say, "Oh, this is backlash; this doesn't really have a delta." I would note that this do... |
Secondly, why is this bad for the quality of life in the long run? Because even if the moves are peaceful in the short run, I think long run this creates a variety of problems that make it substantially harder for ethnic minorities to live. |
So, what open governments say is that, "Ah, well, the comparative is that they live in slums." But I would note that sometimes it is actually preferable for them to live in a slum than to be surrounded by members of another ethnic group or members of a wealthier group who turn their noses down on them and don't perceiv... |
Right? Because no the often ethnic groups don't exist like in even proportions; it's not 50 Black people and 50 White people in the United States of America. Often, the groups tend to be concentrated in certain regions, and this concentration tends to be quite good for them for two reasons. |
Firstly, it provides political representation for them. I think this means that they are able to elect local governments, or elect local mayors, or elect at least one representative that will represent their interests nationally when they live in the same neighborhood and that neighborhood is counted as the constituenc... |
I think it's a, I think comparatively, what is what governments essentially do is gerrymander entire districts, meaning that you have 30% of one small group one once one smaller ethnic minority living within that group, and the rest of the 70% are the majority group. I think the problem here is that the majority group ... |
Secondly, though, I think often living in a concentrated area is good, insofar as it provides you insulation from oppression. You are unlikely to face discrimination at the employment level when every single other person living in that neighborhood and working in the bakeries and shops is also part of your ethnic group... |
I think this is substantially better because it means there's a level playing field and you're able to access certain opportunities you're likely to be discriminated out of in wealthier regions. I'll take a POI from CG, OG. |
<poi> |
Yeah, I don't think the forced moving of people works. The way this usually happens is the way it's done in Singapore: you provide public housing schemes to minorities outside the neighborhood; you move the minorities in; you don't move the majority out. That's a crazy case! |
</poi> |
Yeah, so I think it's probably also bad if these minorities are on the outskirts of the neighborhoods that you're moving them into. I think this generally I think this verifies inequalities and often adapts in fairly exclusionary ways. |
I.E., you have a neighborhood where the inner part of the neighborhood is a very wealthy place, but the outer part of it is slums where you have poor people living there. I think this makes it impossible for any of the opening governments like could contact theory arguments to accrue, insofar as you likely have very in... |
I think you often can't afford the prices and the property values within the wealthier region; you often feel unsafe, and you can't go to these nice schools nice um private schools, insofar as wealthy people are likely to adapt to create a variety of public a variety of private services that replace public services th... |
I think in the long run, a variety of problems get substantially worse. You have far more gerrymandering, ethnic minorities are less able to politically exercise their voices, and they're more likely to be oppressed and discriminated against at the point in time where they are the minority in a very, very large group o... |
</lo> |
<dpm> |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.