Split (1)

train · 5.86k rows

text stringlengths 0 9.69k
Firstly, even if they do have employment in those areas, it's very often menial labor that pays incredibly low, also very often in the bay economy, which means you're not eligible for credit or collateral. If you want to have any form of vertical mobility, you often also don't learn transferable skills which you can put on your CV to get a job elsewhere. Secondly, if you are keen on ethnic only by Chinatown or the banlieues of Marseille, you don't have an incentive to learn the language, which means that you and your children cannot access any form of mobility outside of that neighborhood, which seems to be the opposite of what the opposition cares about if they really care about choice.

But thirdly, these areas are fundamentally under-invested in, which is to say the capital admiration and Naomi talks about is the least likely in those neighborhoods. There's a lack of infrastructure there, and we're talking about the basics; we're talking about sewage, we're talking about garbage removal, we're talking about literal street lights. Why? Because there's a self-reinforcing mechanism. There is a perception that these people don't want to integrate, they don't want to live with us, they don't want to try and make an effort; why should we then pump our money into their neighborhoods?

And then it takes a further step at the point where those neighborhoods become dilapidated. Yes, they are less developed, and they are more worn down than other neighborhoods. This creates a visual association with poverty and crime; it makes people even less likely to want to invest in those neighborhoods, which means that in the status quo, they already live horribly, but also those who live outside those areas are associated with those same negative associations and are subject to the same violence that opposition seems to care about.

Before I explain why it becomes comparative on our side, something opening government doesn't do. I'll take opening opposition.

<poi>
Kids listen to what their parents tell them. Why do Indians and Muslims still hate each other years after partition? And even if biases decrease on your side, they don't, when people are now invading your community.
</poi>

Because of proximate experiences. If I'm a seven-year-old kid, I know my dad is angry at the news when watching them and stuff like this, but what they care about more is my friend who is proximate to me and who causes me positive emotions, as opposed to a narrative which tells me stories which I then see are not true practically when I go to school and stuff like this.

What is the comparison? The comparison is that people now have incentives to access opportunities that exist, and they do NGOs that provide training and stuff like that, but they don't have those incentives when they are concentrated in those enclaves. But secondly, this is incredibly key: the state is now structurally likely to provide these people with training for employment, with ideal literacy programs, with language learning. Why? Because the opposition is correct about the backlash point; then the state has an incentive to prove that this policy makes sense to deliver results on the policy. To do that, they need to make sure these people are going to get employed, but they're going to have work, which means this only exists in the state forces itself.

Only one position where it has to do this would also prove that they're more likely to integrate. The last thing: this is political representation. Four things here: first of all, it's marginal. Even if you get a single representative in the city council, he has very little political power against the entire council. People also probably don't want to associate with them during my own class point. Secondly, you still have to cater to minorities because for some reason opposition assumes that majorities vote homogeneously. No, not all White people vote the same; some vote one left-wing party, some vote another left-wing party, some vote right-wing, which means minority peoples can still be kingmakers.

Thirdly, minority representation in most of these countries is already constitutionally mandated for the very post-conflict reason.

The opposition talks about lawmakers knowing that there's been a history of ethnic conflict. So they've included the mandatory representation of minorities into Parliament to prevent comfort in the future. This decision happens in Croatia, where we have a Serbian representative. But lastly, this point is uncomparative in half of electoral systems, but not all systems are first past the post. So the political representation thing is incredibly marginal. The government proposition, however, isn't marginal; we remove people from the current status quo, which is horrible. Even if this change is marginal, the status quo is so horrible that the marginal change must be made for closing government.
</mg>

<mo>
Starting in three, two, one. Closing opposition is going to be the first team that proves that xenophobia and racism are not a short-term transit problem, but something that structurally recognizes itself over and over, and it gets worse over time.

Secondly, we're going to prove why you are significantly reducing the purchasing power and the length value that people in those communities get, which made them cope with the economic unfortunate realities that they lived in. This is going to directly pass the closing government on to the first extension. The CG response is that the contact theory basically they're going to get better over time. So the only thing that we have to prove to take out OG and CG is that your racist parents are not going to allow you to begin with foreign friendships with Black people. They're not going to allow you to get attention in school because the teachers are racist, and you're going to be going to the schools that are the most defunded because you're the poorest in that particular region.

This is the only burden we have to prove why this is structurally true. Actual analysis, not intuition problems about historical examples, relative to our opening opposition. The first reason is that people have a natural inclination to be xenophobic. I want to headline this very carefully: not all people are racist; they have the opportunity to be racist. That is to say, for the vast majority of our evolution, we have lived in small tribes in which we have differentiated ourselves through facial features, like the skin that you have on your face, the cover of your eyes, the cover of your hair, and the facial features that you have. It was a sign of trust, and comparatively, people that are facially and physically different from you were seen as distrustful, as different, and as people that you shouldn't trust.

The second reason is simply political exogenous factors that exacerbate and take advantage of that natural inclination towards racism. There are two primary factors that happen. The first is the natural incentive of every political stage to form a national identity through patriotism and nationalism. In the vast majority of cases, the easiest way for you to form a narrative is to cater to the majority. In the vast majority of countries, like India and America, this caters to that dominant ethnic majority, which in many cases whitewashes or actively discriminates or creates negative beliefs towards the minority. Because for you to be a great nation and a great ethnicity, like white core Americans, you must be comparatively better than other ethnicities. This is why the glorification of a particular ethnicity in a nation comes comparatively at the expense and the discrimination against other ethnicities.

The second reason is that there are a lot of media and political incentives from demagogues and political leaders to actively reignite racial tensions and to use them as a political platform. Either A, you are already exploiting a natural psychological inclination of people, like fear-mongering for migrants, like using racist stereotypes, "Black people are welfare queens that are draining away the budget of the state." This is an easy way to channel the negative emotions of people and to get votes. But secondly, it's a comparatively better option for you to get votes instead of having actual critiques for your political platform and engaging in elaborate political policy.

If your policy is not based on products, those are reasons as to why racism does not go down in any way; it only goes up, which directly clashes through the characterization from opening government and closing government. I want to make this crucial contact theory work only if you are willing to charitably engage in contact to begin with. If you are a racist and you experience this particular policy, the likely narrative that is going to be weaponized by the dominant political establishment is going to be: those people are invading your neighborhoods. You have to sabotage this particular policy; you have to actually rebel against this type of policy. Especially if they invade your neighborhoods, this also reduces the likelihood, as per the analysis of closing government, to give them training or to give them more resources. They have already received the right and privilege to live in your neighborhood; why would you give them more?

This is the first extension. The second extension has to do purely with economic discrimination. The first premise is that, in many cases, the average wage of different ethnicities within countries is vastly different. This is just trivially true. The average wage for South African white men is $40,000; for a Black man, it's six times less. The average wage for a white American cover worker is fucking $70,000; for a Black man, it's barely fucking $30,000. What are the structural reasons behind this? There are three. The first of which is if people are naturally xenophobic and there is an inclination for it to be racist, you attach negative work labels to those particular ethnicities. This is why Black people are seen as uncivilized and aggressive. Those are the most people in high-paying corporate jobs; they are seen as lazy, as welfare queens, and in many cases, you have an incentive to portray them in that particular way. Thus, hiring them becomes risky.

The second reason is that workplaces become ethnically equal chambers over the long term. This is why the most high-paying jobs in South Africa, within India, and within America are all dominated by the dominant ethnicity that is culturally homogeneous and is not willing to allow other people to enter. But thirdly, even if racism gets better over time, the previous historical disadvantage remains. You cannot get into high-paying jobs if you don't have connections to go to university, if you weren't in private schools to get achievements, and if your poor Black parents were poor. You're comparatively likely to be historically disadvantaged, and this is an intergenerational economic hub in that particular way.

Why is this crucial? Three reasons as to why those people are unable now to cope: they were previously able to cope within their communities economically and are now unable to do so. The first, which is that the costs of living are significantly going up, is because previously those communities were culturally homogeneous, meaning each one of them on average had roughly the same purchasing power. Thus, supermarkets that provide basic utilities, the prices of electricity and water, and the prices for the school utensils of your child were roughly in accordance in a way that would maximize profits for companies.

The those, they were comparatively cheaper. Now, if you introduce other ethnicities that we have proven have much more purchasing power and are comparatively richer, this means that the prices for everyone are going up because you can hijack the prices to ensure profits from the rich minority and then force other people to adapt and go into starvation. Before I continue, opening.

<poi>
When your weight goes up, you can isolate against marginal increases of discrimination. You take a cab; you put up a fan. Salary discrepancies decrease as perogy mechanisms; gentrification is symmetrical. It usually happens when they're not diverse.
</poi>

I generally don't understand this quite; I'm sorry, I don't understand a lot of passages. I didn't understand it. Secondly, property prices are going up in the status quo. There isn't the water of the month for you to live in culturally homogeneous communities of certain ethnicities that are low paid, meaning the prices of your mortgage, the prices of your rent, and the prices upon which you buy property are going down. In many cases, racial stereotypes are actually something positive for those communities when they're buying properties because if the neighborhood is associated with racial stereotypes speaking of good crime, the prices are going down and they are staying down, which makes it much more likely for people to be better able to cope now that there is more demand for buying properties.

To which people are buying properties in those particular regions, the overall bidding process and demand goes up. This is the same reason as to why, like Americans are currently outpriced by corporations that are willing to pay much more to buy out properties in their neighborhood that are previously established. On all those grounds, it's certain, irrespective of political considerations, that people must be able to meet their basic necessities. This is the only way for them to retain the ability to economically cope in disadvantaged regions. All those grounds i pause.
</mo>

<gw>
I reject this characterization coming from the opposition bench, that is actually quite insulting, that most people are racist inherently and that most people are inherently evil. I reject the characterization that just because my father fought Serbs in the Yugoslav War, I inherently have to hate Serbs because of all of the previous ethnic tensions and stuff like this. I would like to characterize that most people are good people. Most people have basic human empathy. When they see someone, they are not focused on the color of their skin but their focus on that this person has empathy, has emotions, has experiences just like I do.

This is what we are uniquely bringing to you from closing government. This is what I'm going to mostly be focusing on in my speech. This is also the reason why we are extending over the opening government because the contact theory that Tin is talking about, which they reject, is an important clash very explicitly in Deputy. The contact theory is logically prior to opening government's case about climbing the socioeconomic ladder because, as per the opposition's bench analysis, just because you're proximate to jobs and schools and opportunities doesn't mean you are able to access them if there is racism that the opposition talks about, which is a clash that opening government never engages with. This is why our extension comes logically prior to them.

I wanted to engage in this clash firstly, just a couple of like a intuitions and a couple of strategic observations. If the opposition bench is right, then progressivism is literally impossible. Yet we have seen historical changes. Yes, we have seen that Serbs and Croats are able to hang out together and live together and all these sorts of things, which means that this is something that, like, if you've got to check this, this is something that is not empirically true. But secondly, what is the comparative on their side of the house? Okay, maybe you feel, you know, how you say, like, better about yourself being surrounded by all of the people from your minorities, but then you live in an enclave. This is what they are implicitly conceding is comparative on their side of the house. You're living in an enclave, which is horrible because you're getting zero state spending. You are not getting any kind of investments and all these kinds of things.

But like, if you look historically, just because our, you know, like parents and like grandparents, just because like they were very, you know, like homophobic for example, but we are not because we were able to like interact with people who have different experiences from us. We are able to share some stories with them, we are able to empathize with them, and we are able to understand that the narratives that we have been fed are not true. Secondly, notice that closing opposition is hinging their mechanism on nationalism, but I would like to posit a counter-characterization which is basically that this is not something that is true. There are very strong political incentives of states, especially states that are very heterogeneous and that come from a post-conflict era, to be, how you say, to not promote xenophobia and to promote peace and stuff like this.

There are a couple of structural reasons for this. Firstly, you don't want ethnic tensions; it's not convenient for you that within your state people are, you know, like killing each other and all these sorts of things. Secondly, there are trade, and these are kind countries that tend to be very often geographically proximate to each other. So, like, for example, and this is why you are trading with each other, you are also, how you say, like, you have to talk about geopolitical issues. You need this type of diplomatic operation and all these sorts of things, which means that they do have an incentive to be good to each other and stuff like this.

This is why, like, for example, the Serbian president has been donating money to Croatia and we had very good, how you say, relations and all these sorts of things. But thirdly, if this policy is done by a state and there is an obvious threat of backlash and violence and all these sorts of things, which is something that the state wants to avoid, obviously, this is how you say, like, they're probably going to try to sell this in a good way and do this in a good way in order to avoid this and all these sorts of things.

Secondly, CO says that you need charitable engagement in order for, how you say, like our extension to work. You need charitable engagement amongst each other. Firstly, I already proved to you why this is possible. Most people aren't fucking racist and, like, this is like a biological argument about how you are scared of people who look different from you. This has been disproven in many studies, so it's not really true. But also, like, we don't so we prove to you that there is going to be charitable engagement. But second, but I want to talk more about this because, like, you don't necessarily need, you know, the most charitable engagement ever. Like, for example, if you have a company and you need labor, you do not care what the color of their skin is; you just care about them being able to do good work and stuff like this.

Because of the capitalistic incentives, you are going to be employing them. Secondly, you also probably do care about, how you say, you also, like, children, for example, they're not discriminating. Like as a parent, you are going to, you know, have to have this, you know, like black child at home with you because they have some, like, work school project together and all these sorts of things, which means that there are going to be natural ways of how people are going to, you know, merge together. Like, you're going to church together and all these sorts of things. Okay, now on to the opening opposition. But before that, POI from them.

<poi>
You complain about the status quo, but you don't explain why they can get opportunities in new areas when they are poor and their deep-seated colonial other identities with anchoring effects. We explained before, CO, if economics is bad regardless, we get basic cultural protection from local level representation.
</poi>

So what we are explaining to you is that when you go to the city or something like this, you inherently, like, have to, you know, like, go to school there which is a better school. You inherently have to, how you say, like, get employed by someone who is, you know, like, who is there because, like, they need someone who you're going to work for and all these kinds of things.

But also when it comes to, like, the political representation and stuff like this, I think Tin deals with this already. Firstly, minorities tend to very often be protected by the Constitution and by the laws because you want to avoid ethnic tensions. But also secondly, because they do, how you say, because they are, you know, to some extent large political groups, but also we are able to flip this argument because once you are increasing the empathy and all these sorts of things, then white people are going to care about minorities and are going to be starting to vote on their issues as well and all these sorts of things.

And then I do not, and I believe that India example that Naomi talks about is an isolated example given the fact that, like, right now they have conflicts over Kashmir. So this is not something that was just years ago; right now they have conflicts. This is why, like, Muslims and Indians, this is different. But also, I also want to talk about how, I also want to talk about more onto the opening proposition because, like, when they're talking about how you're going to lose access to important community and, like, the person that sold you ice cream when you were young and stuff like this, like, this is not a reason. Like, people move every single day and they move on. Like, Naomi moved seven times already; like, it's fine. Like, you can just move on with your life and stuff like this.

But also secondly, we tell you that, like, they're going to be, how you say, like, building synagogues and all these sorts of things. So you are going to be able to have access to these sorts of things, and also, you are probably going to have people from your, how you say, like minority groups and all these sorts of things that you're going to be able to interact with and stuff like this. And then we're talking about backlash and all these sorts of things. I already deal with this, but I don't think that backlash is going to happen in the long term on a large scale, given the, uh, given the fact that like, even if it happens short-termly, this is something that has to happen. Like JFK literally had to send an army when segregation of schools ended, but this is something that was necessary to do in order for society to progress.
</gw>

<ow>
Starting in three, two, one. Our case, the majority of it is not even dependent on us proving integration because it's highly questionable. We give you the reasons why it won't happen, but the crux of the case is not dependent on this. It's purely an economical fact that once you have people from different wealth groups, price manipulation cannot happen.

Currently, shops and corporations have a profit incentive to maximize, to manipulate the price in different regions. This is to say certain neighborhoods get the same product for a cheaper price because people cannot afford it. Either way, when you have a mix of those groups in one place, you cater to the ones who are paying the most because it maximizes your profit incentive, meaning now there are no places where poor people can go to get cheap products or where they can get cheap rent because everywhere the level has risen up, right? Because you cater to the people who are more likely to pay more.

This does not depend on even if people are racist or not because it's just how the market works. This crucially makes people less able to protect themselves, to have to work three jobs, to have to literally be on the street or eat less because they can't afford the expensive food in the neighborhood. That's what our case is. Don't let them mislead you. Firstly, on CG, they think, "Oh, but our creation parents are here," but don't predetermine our fate, blah, blah.

If you think about it, neither team, but on the short diagonal, gives you structural reasons why people are likely to not be racist. The intuition pumping with the thousand examples, but the analysis there is not present. Then maybe gives you one piece of analysis to engage with later, but the response to our case is just, "Ah, I don't accept this narrative that people who are racist." This is just intuition. They literally say, "Good check this," but what is the analysis? I would like to see it.

This thing, ah, the evolution argument has been this problem. This is one part out of our four mechanisms as to why people are getting more racist over time. They don't engage with our arguments and why nationalism exacerbates, um, uh, racism in a way that benefits politicians. They don't engage with the fact that polarization benefits media and political parties because the more hatred you feel, the more likely you are to click on a bad article or to vote for a passionate political party who are being racist, who are trying to say you fear the people stealing your job. We want to help you.

They don't engage with this, and they should come because this analysis predetermines everything in this debate. It determines whether a lot of integration could happen. It predetermines whether or not you can make use of those fancy schools and integration programs that they talk about. More structure, really though. What do they say? Firstly, they decided to be public housing. Three reasons why this is not the case: one, it's just a very unpopular policy to do in the first place. Why is this the case? One, properties in the area will lose their value if you're able to house a lot of people in one place for a cheaper price. That's why rich landlords who get passive income from renting out their multiple like apartments or the real estate lobby would not allow for this to happen.

Secondly, it's just too expensive. You have to build the building, you have to hire staff, you have to maintain it constantly, meaning the state has too high of a cost for a benefit that is not even certain. Integration is highly uncertain; you are not willing to do this. But lastly, you don't have a political gain to do this. Those people don't vote because they don't have the time or because they're not politically engaged. Therefore, individual policy well you don't benefit as a politician because no one cares about this.

Now, secondly, on integration, one, they say, "Ah, but in the best case scenario, displaying the kids who are like not racist right now who integrate with other kids," but again, this is a certainty. Why? One, kids don't interact with one another constantly. This explains to you that your parents will literally not allow you to play with the other kid of the background if they are themselves racist, which we prove. But secondly, even in the best case, whether you're in school and you're untouched by your parents, there is a lot of segregation based on friend groups, right? You split with your friends who you already know. When you see the new kid coming in, you want to integrate them.

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.