Dataset Viewer
text
stringlengths 0
9.69k
|
|---|
<pm> |
Three, two, one. In a world in which every single day you are expressed to opinions, to hit pieces, to news, to conversations with friends and relatives that influence you in any way imaginable, we think it's justified to weaponize the minds of people to achieve societal means, considering that every single individual is an equal moral actor. Thus, we think the best world is one in which you maximize the total people. Progressivism is the ideology that receives that. |
Firstly, framing this debate: what we are talking about, and secondly, why was it more progressivism and why this is good that exists within the stethoscope. First, on how this will be done: likely done in a gradual way. That is to say, not completely shifting the algorithm to be excessively progressive at once, but likely gradually shifting towards more progressivism and still retaining some right-wing content for the sake of having a contrast between political views. |
Secondly, they're likely to do it with maximum discrepancy and secrecy, considering that in the vast majority of your cases you wish to avoid public backlash. The most obvious response is, they're going to be whistleblowers; they're going to reveal something. This is completely asymmetric on both sides because currently, we have a highly politically polarized and culturally warfare environment in which a right-wing demagogue has a pragmatic incentive to make conspiracy theories that existing social media are currently liberally dominant. |
Just think about Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro, Elon Musk, who bought Twitter. All they say is that the status quo is dominantly liberal. So we're not certain why any sociopolitical backlash is going to be estimated to the highest objective status for right now. The second point of framing is what are we obviously talking about? Progressive systems have four, uh, maintenance that I'm going to explain, and I'm going to prove why this is the likely interpretation that is going to exist. |
The first is a recognition of positive rights. That is to say, we tax the rich and redistribute to the poor because we realize that you cannot exercise your agency if you don't have sufficient resources to choose your own career, to have free time, to not experience burnout, to give a basic amount of physical comfort. We tax the rich to keep universal health care because we realize that your right to life is if you don't have the right to be treated physically and mentally to access that particular right. |
This is the first core tenant. The second one is always seeking to improve society and to get progress, which is, uh, in total opposition to right-wing political viewpoints that are more traditionalists, either returning to the previous status quo or preserving the status quo or being excessively slow in progressing and being very risk-averse in that particular way. This is necessary because the world is facing problems that we haven't faced before. |
Climate change requires a fundamental shift in our economical and current societal structures because we are very close to the spinning point in which there is no reversibility and we're all going to die. Like, we're very close to a 1.5 degrees Celsius increase in temperatures, which is why we must give a massive shift that is not slow and that doesn't focus on the status quo. |
The third black interpretation is focus on minority rights. Those could be ethnical minorities, or LGBTQ people that are generally oppressed by society, by currently existing socially conservative religious, and generally speaking, traditional norms. The fourth thing that is common with progressivism is a maximization of liberty. This is why we support a separation of state. This is why we support more abortion for women because they can best decide the circumstances upon which they're operating unless it is absolutely necessary, for example, taking away some of the freedom of rich people or gun shooters. |
If we are paying on the caution of giving maximum freedom to people, this is likely to be the broad interpretation for tourism. The first reason is simply speaking, uh, this is the interpretation that most political and social movements have; it's more broad in general and not excessively radical to attract the biggest amount of people. But second, the social medias would not wish to be certainly become communists and to be labeled as communists, which is why they would go for a more broadly accepted, um, particular thing of progressivism. |
Now on to the argument: why do we want to make more people progressive and how are we going to achieve this? I would posit two mechanisms as to why we're better able to achieve it. The first mechanism is internalization through continuous repetition. I want to ask you something, panel: what, uh, two plus two? How much is two? Four, right? You intuitively say it. Why? Because you have heard it a million times; you don't even think otherwise. |
It's an internal part of you. The more you hear a concept without it being disputed, especially at times in which you are not thinking clearly, you're mentally exhausted, you are emotionally drained, you're just brainless. The more you take, that's a given. The more familiar it becomes, which is why we are likely to succeed in massive shifting society because the average person uses social media every single fucking day. Statistically speaking, the average person uses it for seven hours. |
Like, I can bet half of my judges that are judging me are browsing on social media while judging me as well. It's either highly addictive; it gives short-term gratification in the form of dopamine, or, in many cases, you are required to use it because this is the dominant social norm. In particular cases, or three, in many cases, you can rationalize, "Oh, I'm just social networking on LinkedIn," or "I'm just researching for debates; I'm not wasting my time on YouTube." So it's very easy for you to get instant gratification education, which your brain craves. |
The average person massively uses it. Through repetition, they're going to get brainwashed, and that's a good thing. The second mechanism is gradual shifts in algorithms, and here I want to illustrate how this is likely to be done. Imagine you are a dissatisfied Roosevelt worker in America. We're not going to say suddenly become a communist; we're going to recommend you a video in which we'll say, "Hmm, isn't it very convenient that all your industries went to the developing world because of corporations that want to maximize their profits?" |
We don't get to suddenly start to being a communist; we can do it gradually. For example, we would first recommend a liberal channel, then a left-leaning liberal channel. We'll first start with like, um, Destiny; then we can go for wash; then we go for Hakeem. We can do it gradually, and this is likely to be more effective because people don't change their beliefs at once, especially if they're long-term beliefs in that particular way, which is why this has to be done gradually. |
The sheer amount of usage and how you brainlessly describe social media is likely to influence beliefs to a massive degree. Before I continue, closing |
<poi> |
Given your interpretation of progressivism, which you would promote, why do you inherently think that the right of a rich person to their individually earned property is morally more important than the right of a poor person to redistribute wealth? |
</poi> |
First, the right is non-existent. It's morally arbitrary for them to get rich, to have the willpower, to have the nepotism, to have the resources. It's morally arbitrary your position in society, your soft skills, your brain power, the environment in which you are born, the social connections that you have. If everything is morally arbitrary, we'd rather distribute it in a way in which we meet the basic material needs of the average person. This is the first intuitive response. |
Secondly, we are fine with trading off moral transgressions towards one particular group if we're improving the freedom of other groups. That is to say, intuitively, we'll take one million from a billionaire if we could save a thousand starving children, right? Because sure, it's a minor, uh, minor transgression important, all right, but it massively improves the right to life of other people and their own stake in life. |
Why is this the most important thing within the round? Firstly, own intensity progressivism inherently cares about the most vulnerable people within society, and secondly, it is better able to counterbalance existing tendencies for |
People to be rightly saying, that is to say, the romanticization of nostalgia, that is to say, the status quo bias of people in which they wish to preserve existing structures. That is to say, our inherent desire to be sexist, racist, tribalistic, which is something that governs people. In the absence of this dominant brainwashing, it's likely to throw them right wing into hurting other people. Follow those rounds. Propose |
</pm> |
<lo> |
Uh, can I be heard? Yeah, great. Okay, three, two, one. First, a piece of rebuttal and then two arguments. The first piece of rebuttal is just, I think it's a weird quirk this motion that our government has to prove that progressivism is in and of itself a good thing. |
And I don't, and like, I think they realize that and then spent like four minutes doing it, but I don't think they do a very good job. They say a couple, they say a few things. Firstly, they say people have a right to, uh, liberty, whatever the fuck that means, which seems to be a very good argument for protecting private property or the shrinking of the state rather than the enlargement of the state. |
The second thing they say is that conservatism is bad, but it's unclear why it is morally unjustifiable to, for example, have a, you know, subscribe to Christianity and have those kinds of beliefs and things like that. Thirdly, they say taxes and redistribution are good, but private property many people argue is justly gained, and so it is immoral to take that away from people or, for example, more pragmatically, if you want to talk about utilitarian benefits, protecting private property is very good at producing incentives to participate in the economy. |
Or, for example, left-wing economics is inflationary and doesn't work, or private services are more efficient and it's better to prune the government. Look, I don't personally believe any of those things, but a hell of a lot of people do. And if you want to justify a priority, uh, progressivism, you better spend more than four, like three minutes doing it. |
Um, uh, that makes government very hard in this debate, but that's not my fault. |
Two arguments then. Firstly, on why this produces backlash, and secondly on the principle. Actually, I'll start with the principle. First thing on why this is immoral. Um, look, OG, uh, sets this debate on by saying because they realize the backlash argument is coming, and they're like, "Oh, I'm gonna make it as secret as possible." |
Look, let's assume that this actually works. This is 100% secret; no one will ever find out about this. Why is that principally bad? Because no social media companies are like any other company. You exchange, like, they make profit, and then you get a service in return, right? Like, that is what you have consented to when you decide to, like, give all of your privacy away. |
Like, maybe it is free to sign up to these services, but the way in which they make money is they take your data and sell it to third parties and stuff like that. So really, indirectly, you are paying them, and then you are getting a service in return. And so if it is the case they are not giving you the service that they promised to you, that you consented to, the one that you have agreed to specifically, that is theft. |
It is analogous, for example, if you bought a VPN service and it doesn't work. It's actually leaking your data to the CIA or whatever, or it's giving it to whoever, whatever, you know, organization it wants. That is theft because you have not consented to that happening. You have agreed to a service; they are making profits in return, and it is fundamentally immoral for them to lie to you and steal your data. |
That I think is theft. Note, the more you believe opening government, that is, the more you believe all of their practical benefits, the more important this principle becomes. They're inversely proportionate. That is to say, the more secret you believe this is, the more effective this is at brainwashing people, the more it is principally immoral, the more it constitutes a theft. This is principally not something that we should do. |
But then secondly, on pragmatics backlash. First question I want to ask is why wouldn't they be able to hide this? Firstly, because there will be whistleblowers, right? There will be people working at these companies that find this principally immoral. Even if you might not credit it as principally immoral, there are plenty of people who do |
Think of it as principally immoral, and note they do not have to be right-wing dingbats for this to happen. They just have to be normal people who think that brainwashing people is not a very good idea and not something they signed up to do, which means that they're going to go to the media because this story will be absolutely eaten up. |
Because They would be given every single prime time interview that they hadn't a choice to; that is in their direct incentives, right? And so they will be able to do this, so this information will go public. Why does that then lead to a disproportionate and extreme reaction? Four reasons why. Firstly, it feeds into pre-existing narratives around tech companies and the work establishment in general. |
All of the stuff that, uh, OG want to talk about, about like, you know, conservatives being like, "Oh look, they're cramming progressivism and LGBT shut down our throats." Uh, you know, all of these tech companies are like Silicon Valley liberal snowflakes or whatever, right? All of that stuff. But no, it's not just right-wing people; it's also just normies and even left-wing people who care about things like data, who care about things like privacy, or for example, people who just don't like, who don't want this stuff being crammed down their throats. |
OG has a stab at this and says, "Oh, it's symmetric because, you know, people already have conspiracy theories about it," which is a very lazy preemptive response because obviously we're not just talking about people who watch Alex Jones every day. We're also just talking about ordinary people, just like centrists, who are kind of on the fence, or for example, even left-wing people who care about data privacy and things like that, who would get extraordinarily pissed off around that. |
You get all the normies, and you make them more right-wing. Secondly, the reason why this leads to such an extreme reaction is because it's perceived as an infringement on your personal space. That is why they refrain. You constantly hear from centrists and normies, "I don't want things getting politicized. I, you know, I have Twitter so I can see funny memes or whatever, or, you know, send like cat photos to my aunt. I'm not on this platform to have propaganda squeezed down my throat." |
This sense of personal space of something that is separate from the political world, something that's separate from your everyday world, is something extraordinarily important. It's something extremely valuable to a diverse amount of people. Thirdly, this reason why it leads to an extreme reaction is because every piece of progressive content now comes in affirmation of this, right? |
Because now, even if you otherwise wouldn't have gotten that progressive content anyway, every single time you see a piece of progressive content, you say, "This doesn't deserve to be here. This was just pumped up by the algorithm and did not deserve to be here." You immediately discredit those ideas out of hand. Everything then becomes like you could, a confirmation of this thing that is happening that you think is bad. |
And fourthly, because there are entrenched norms around fairness. Now you think, "Oh, because people think, oh, this is really, really unfair. We think this broadly should be a meritocracy." You see the content that you want and is doing well on the algorithm; you don't want things being pushed down your throat. Before I go, I'll take CG. |
<poi> |
Your own claim is this is an existing narrative that means you haven't identified the margin whatsoever because people continue to view social media promotion of progressive content. |
</poi> |
Yes, some people are conspiratorial, but the vast majority of people just think of this as normal. And it's not symmetric. |
If you see on the news, like just imagine this: you see on the news Facebook, Twitter, Instagram are artificially inflating the success of these particular types of content, are changing the things that you see on your algorithm every single day, are tinkering around with your data. That is a real thing. That is something that people care about. That is something that has happened, right? |
Which means that the vast majority of ordinary normies, who otherwise wouldn't be watching conspiratorial theories, now get really, really upset. How does backlash manifest? Firstly, you simply discredit this progressive content out of hand, even if you otherwise wouldn't have in the comparative. Secondly, it pushes people to the right. Normies, now if it is the case that you assume that progressivism is good, are now more likely to support right-wing candidates because they think that the elite, the establishment, all of these tech companies that govern what they see on a day-to-day basis are taking over their lives, are invading their personal space. They're more likely to vote for, for example, in |
sWing States for Republicans in the United States, if you think progressivism is good, that is a disaster. Thirdly, people stop using these platforms, which is bad in and of itself because a lot of people just like using Twitter, but also they move on to other sites. For example, whatever the right-wing one is, I don't know the name, but it's like full of sets, like in-cells, and like that, that's pretty bad. This outweighs efficacy; it's not efficacious on their side for two reasons. |
Firstly, it is unclear if this can actually switch your allegiances over because there's a pre-existing sense of community. You have pre-existing views; there are other posts, for example, as they can see that are going to be on your feed. But secondly, this information pops up, and you have a short attention span. You only see it for two minutes; the effect is marginal. Unclear why this makes you, you know, Karl Marx or whatever, or very proud to oppose. |
</lo> |
<dpm> |
So can you hear me? Ah, sorry, my internet is plugged. Uh, okay, pois in chat. I will take one from closing, and I'll start in just a sec. Okay, starting in three, two, one. If you really think about it, everybody is impacted by progressivism, even if you are a toxic male. Talking about males' rights right now is something progressive because progressivism deals with every person's human rights to be treated equally before all. |
End of preview. Expand
in Data Studio
README.md exists but content is empty.
- Downloads last month
- 56