Split (1)

train · 5.86k rows

text stringlengths 0 9.69k

Okay, opening opposition, morally equivalent to test. I think our principle implicitly engages this leads to substantial backlash among moderates. Look, this is contingent on people finding out; even if they get more progressive content in their feeds to begin with, that doesn't necessarily mean they find out in so far as social media companies keep this secret. The reason there's a lack of a margin is because there are strong incentives for
Any political ideology to pump up the persecution complex of itself. So when someone notices one Progressive post on social media, they still think, "Look, social media is rigged against that," because they notice that much more than the normalized conservative content that's in our stream overall. Our case is not dependent on progressivism being good or making people progressive; it's dependent on leveling a rigged playing field and ensuring violent extremism does not win out. Propose
</gw>

<ow>
okay, I'll be starting my speech in three, two, one. I'll just go team by team, starting with, let's say, closing government. Firstly, they say this is something that is rightfully justified because historically, the right wing has been fostered on social media. Firstly, I don't think this response to things analysis, which is like within succession, which is perfectly interacting with this one moral ever, does not nullify the other. We don't believe that the correct response to this, like how you say, historical injustice or whatever, is to create another moral evil.

Like, why is it legitimate to do this even if it does lead to some utilitarian benefits? Why is this legitimate to do this in a way that you are, like, how you say, limiting freedom of speech of people that want to share their, you know, conservative opinions on Twitter and stuff like this? Why is this justified by tampering with these people and stuff like this?

Secondly, they're talking, and this is something very important, because CG is focusing mostly on extremism and people feeling unsafe. We can, how you say, limit this on our side of the house as well. Conservativism is not equivalent to extremism. Saying, "I support abortion," is not equivalent to saying, "I hate women," and stuff like this. These are not two things that are interacting. So hate speech and stuff like this, making people feel unsafe, this is something that already is, like, under the law.

Then, like, this is hate speech. There is a difference between freedom of speech and hate speech. Things that you are, things that, I don't know, Ben Shapiro when he's coming to, you know, when he's saying things that he's allowed to say and that he isn't allowed to say, which means that I do believe that this is outside of the bed. But let's engage in this in a more nuanced way. What we tell you—and this is how we are also extending over the opening opposition—because what we are telling you is that what you are going to get is a retaliatory mechanism of people going to places that are much more shielded, such as, you know, 4chan, deep edits of Reddit, and all these sorts of things.

And the reason how we extend over the opening opposition is they just say, "Ah, there's going to be backlash because people are going to believe in conspiracy," and this is not responsive to Tejas' POI. But the reason why you're going to believe in conspiracy is there's obviously a difference from the status quo because in the status quo, when some crazy people start talking about how you say conspiracy, the social media can be like, "Look guys, this is exactly how our algorithms work," and stuff like this. But this is not something that can happen on their side of the house.

I also want to say, secondly, they say, "Ah, Parler is dead," and stuff like this. Yes, because right now platforms are allowing conservative discourse on social media. This would not have happened if, how you say, they would be completely excluded from the conversation and all these sorts of things. But they're also not getting any kind of change, and this is how I'm going to engage with opening government as well because, um, Maria, I will take your slice, so not now.

This is how they are getting—they are not getting change on their side of the house. Why is this so? Firstly, on efficacy, they say this is going to be done in a gradual way. If I'm conservative and I get nine liberal articles but they get one conservative article, I want to confirm what are my beliefs because I want to feel good about myself. I want to believe that I'm a good person, so I'm going to ignore nine liberal articles and I'm going to interact with the conservative article because I want to get a confirmation for my beliefs. I don't want to think about, I don't know, how you say, how my opinions are bad and stuff like this, which means that if this is done in a gradual way, which is OG setup, they are not getting a meaningful delta.

Secondly, they say social media is the tipping point very often. It's not like even if I get exposure to liberal ideas on social media, then if I'm like Jim bro, I go to the gym with my other gym bros and we talk about how much we hate women. Then I go to my work and I talk with my colleagues about how much I hate poor people and stuff like this. I go to church and I hear church propaganda from my priest and I'm like, "Okay, it's fine." Like this is not, and then, you know, reading TikToks and all these sorts of things is not going to tilt me away from my already existing beliefs.

But the third reason why this is not working in efficacy is because people have—people know things. So this is attacking the mechanism. They say, "Ah, people just don't know." Some people very often know stuff; they just have personal reasons why they are affiliated with certain ideology more than the other. And this is because, how you say, rich people know they are exploiting poor people; like they know this, but they are not going to change this because some girl made a TikTok about it. They just want more money, and this is why, how you say, white girls on TikTok are not going to change anyone's mind and stuff like this.

Now they say, "Uh-huh, they say there is right-wing propaganda today circling," and stuff like this. So I noticed that, you know, that you're head when they say this, but this was assertion. This was just assertion. I would like to pause it that, how you say, Guardian economies, BBC, CNN, strongest media houses today have the most followers, have the most subscribers, all these sorts of things, more than like Daily Wire or Prague or whatever the fuck.

So this is not something that is inherently true. But secondly, even if it is inherently true that there is right-wing propaganda, this is limiting their impact because if right-wing propaganda is everywhere, then, how you say, TikTok and social media and stuff like this, this is not going to have a huge effect on my opinion and stuff like this. But secondly, they say there are some people who are like close to center who are able to tilt their opinions.

Two responses to this, and one is a strategic observation because notice their impacts. Their impacts are they have to have change. We have to have people who are going to vote for progressive policies and all these sorts of things. If they want to claim those impacts, they need masses of people to be able to change, how you say, like politics and all these sorts of things; they need people in power to change their opinions and stuff like this. At best, they are proving that some people who are moderate are going to read one article and be said and going to change their opinions. This is at best interpretation of the opening government, which is not enough for them to be able to claim all their impacts about social change or, how you say, poor people not getting exploited and all these things. OG.

<poi>
This motion applies to all social medias, meaning opens can't prove you go to some smaller corporation social media because all of them have to do this. And CG don't prove an analysis because...
</poi>

you go to, Andrew Tate comment section and you jerk off with your gym bros and stuff like this. You go to the gym and you jerk off each other and all these sorts of things. I don't know, okay, whatever. So you don't really achieve any kind of change on your side of the house.

But lastly, and what completely destroys them is team extension. Even if the government bench proves everything, this is moral evil. This is something that is purely illegitimate for people to shape discourse in such a way. Their only, how you say, preemption to our, how you say, principle is that, "Ah, but there is already right-wing propaganda," which they do not prove, and even if there is some kind of right-wing propaganda, this is not something that, how you say, is competitive.

But also, they say, "Ah, echo chambers exist," and all these sorts of things. If they are so powerful, if they are so powerful that they are not getting changed on their side of the house. And the reason why we weigh over the opening opposition is notice that their practical impacts are fairly symmetric. No one cares about data harvesting right-wing backers; the way that they explain it is fairly symmetrical. The principle that Dean talks about is universal, and you support for us.
</ow>
<pm>
Starting in three, two, one.
Okay, where is this relevant? I think in states such as in Latin American states, where there is increasing, like very high primary activities, such as in Italy or states such as Italy or Japan, where you have super entrenched like a crime rate uh crime organizations or African states, where have like a local organized crime. What is expelling, and how would it be done?

Probably you revoke their religious status, like in the case of Italy. You revoke their Christian status. You do it publicly or through a public declaration. It's probably like it's posted or like it's said by the leader of the local church. You can't act, and as a result, they can't access the church or any of the church services. You also can't donate to basically shout out of the community, formally and shout out from God or from all the metaphysical benefits that the church and Christianity, or the religion, can provide to you.

One, I think this is a deterrent for people joining. Who is this about? I think this is about young people who are not still fully in and who would consider joining gangs. On the uh on on the alternative, I think people will say, "No, no, no, but people only join in case like extreme cases of hunger." I don't think that, exactly a lot of, like a significant amount of cases, each people who is people who could be earning money someplace else.

But it would definitely be harder, and it's young people who join them due to peer pressure or because they feel like it's the easier way to please their family, or because they feel like it's something very edgy to do or like feel like it's a part of their identity that they can embrace.
Why does this break, and why does it act as a deterrent? It takes away the capacity to repent for your sins to the extent to which the church can seek punishment in these gangs. Obviously, because they kill people, because they go against a lot of religious Christian values. Forcing them out and forcing them to live with their actions is the punishment that the church can do, so it's the fair bit it should be doing in order to start to help decrease the numbers.

Expelling them means that you also incur a metaphysical cost because you see you cannot repent for your sins, you cannot ask God for forgiveness, and probably you are unable to access Heaven. This is crucial because if you're a young, like 16-year-old, and you feel like you should get in for your family to help them have a better living, but the church is likely to expel you if your family ends up hating you because the church cut you out, your main decisional factor is gone.

And you perceive this as being a bigger identity trade of renouncing your religion than joining the gang would be an addition to your identity or an addition to your material condition. So I think you're likely, from a personal and emotional kind of balance, to not want to get into this and, or at least, yeah, and to weigh up more on the side of do not joining the gang.

Secondly, that's not enough. The metaphysical threat of not being able to go to heaven might supersede anything that pushes back on from my previous mechanism because you know that even if you don't do terrible things, you're very likely to do bad things which will send you to hell. And you're constantly and continuously prevented from being forgiven because now God doesn't speak to you anymore, so you'll have to live with the guilt, and you also have to live with the certainty of hell, which I think this is something intuitively a lot of people would prioritize.

There's a second argument here which I think is very crucial. A lot of mob bosses and a lot of prominent gang members go to church very publicly. They donate a lot, they use religious symbols into their discourse or into their actions because they want to promote this as we're doing this for a moral good and for moral values, where the vigilantes that solve the injustices that the state is doing upon our communities, and we have God on our side, which means that the community should embrace us as well.

Why is it crucial that you cut the access they have? Because they use it in order to access the families, right? To accept the families in the communities that see them going to the same church day in and day out, and they grow softer onto the horrible things that they're doing or at least see this as, "They surely know what they're doing; they're talking to God like I am. Right?

Secondly, they're looked up to by children. If children see them in church day in and day out, they're more likely to join. From my previous argument, thirdly, they get humanized, right? They're just somebody from your congregation, as you are. And fourthly, you're seen as a benefactor. You have money; you give money to the church, so the community softens up, and they instrumentalize this a lot in order to get liked by the community.

They instrumentalize this because they don't want to get ratted out. They don't want communities to collaborate with the police to get them sentenced or trialed. And secondly, because they want to incentivize joining.

Why does this changes, and why is this the tipping point? One, because the church does a public statement against them. They say they're not part of the community, nor does God endorse their message, which means that we are not willing, they're not doing the moral good, nor are they helping our community. So you, as a Christian or a member of the congregation, owe them nothing, and you shouldn't go soft on the crimes they commit just because they donate some money to our canteen.

Secondly, the church then becomes the moral arbiter of their immorality, which is something exclusively the church can do not because the state can't be the moral arbiter of their immorality, because it is seen as the enemy as opposed to the church, which is proximate to people, who can now say, "We, as the authority figures, tell that these people are immoral and that you shouldn't be crediting or allowing your children to get into these gangs."

which means that you have a clear-cut distinction: these people are immoral, and you should be banishing them morally. I will explain what this means, but I'm happy to take CO

<poi>
yeah, if it is the case that these young people have so many alternatives to joining gangs, why is it the case that most of them still put their lives at risk in the status quo? And still...,
</poi>

I've gone through this. If you're planning to win on these cases, there are few in numbers, and you lose out on all of the other people I've explained don't get in in the first place.

Why are you more likely to do it? So why is this the tipping point? I will say it will still be scary for you to confess. You'll be afraid for your safety because if the whole community does a common front against them as a result of being excommunicated, they can protect each other. So there's a feeling of safety because now the community as a whole is against them.

Secondly, the numbers stop growing as a deterrent. So even if this impact doesn't occur in two years, in the long term, it is super efficient. It's closing five or ten years and exponentially, so they're more brave to confess because you see the numbers decreasing. Thirdly, you limit your duty as a moral Christian in the face of God to confess or to write these people out to the police.

And fourthly, you're less likely to feel compassionate because they're not good people anymore, and you feel like, again, your duty as a good Christian is to make them pay for what they've done. I think I will claim that you can convince people to stay in and to mend their ways, or at least that depends on the community. Certainly, the community is not their criteria given they inflict a lot of harm in these communities, and it's unlikely that the church is able to convince them to mend their ways because they will keep thinking God is on their side.

It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Every time something works out for me as a mafia boss, I think that God is with me. If the church says God is not with you, if they stop the self-fulfilling prophecy and they stop the community from buying into it.
</pm>

<lo>
I'll be starting my case in three, two, one. I'm sorry, but this case is absolutely ludicrous. Most gang members are the average rank-and-file gang members, youth people, as OG can see it's not Vito Coral elements, especially in areas that the opening government talks about in Latin America.

Why do those people join? One, they very often come from disenfranchised communities. They're forced to join these gangs because they are presented with some kind of economic security. They allow them to do things like petty crime and pay them off for that in areas where jobs are scarce.

Secondly, even if these are not economically disenfranchised communities, these are very often areas with severe lack of policing, think areas in El Salvador where barrios, barriers, gangs like Mara Salvatrucha and stuff like that literally own those places. The police doesn't enter there, or other local police officers, deputies, and chiefs are actively being tipped off by the gangs. Which means your only way to not get shot and to protect yourself is have a gun. Thirdly, They often get threatened through these guys who say you will get a bullet in your head if you don't join, or as opening armor themselves, conceding prime minister by their families who push them to do that, who fear for their safety, or because they're gang members themselves. Opening government people don't go and risk being shot because they're edgy. This is a ridiculous claim. This means, therefore, that the idea that people now just won't join gangs because they won't do the edgy thing anymore doesn't stand in this debate. The only other mechanism OG has to prove this is to say the metaphysical threat is going to stop them. Guys, you don't wake up thinking about God and Heaven in 60 years if you don't have food in your belly or if you're about to get shot in the head. Unfortunately, hunger and fear are physiological emotions which are incredibly proximate as opposed to theological abstract considerations.

The final thing that left starting from opening government is the idea that the community is going to put up a unified front against those people and rat them out. This is not the reason why they don't rat out. The reason why they don't rat out is because the local police officer may be corrupt and then rat them out to the gang. The reason why they don't rat out is because there is a family member might get taken hostage and shot. The reason why we don't rat out is because they're scared of these gangs taking away the basic livelihood that they have, that tomorrow might be the ones caught in the crossfire because the gang wants to send a signal and the message that nobody should rat out the gang that rules this neighborhood at the point where the police is not there. This mechanism isn't true from the side of opening government. My analysis also means that in so far as justified morally in the vast majority of cases as a retaliatory measure, they do not have that moral justification in so far as most of those people did not do that because of a criminal and evil mind, but because they had no choice.

The second thing I want to discuss are the benefits of the church to these individuals and wider society as a corollary. Firstly, the church provides solace. There is some kind of hope in the future despite what you've done. It's a psychological benefit, or probably the least important. The more important one are the narratives that when it is possible, in the best case of opening government, to escape those gangs push you to do so. Narratives that are actively anti-violence, Jesus turning the other cheek, violence as the path to Satan and sin merely push people to renounce violence. The second type of narrative is the hope for salvation and redemption. God still loves you because you are a son of God, and it is possible to repent within the earthly material world. There is hope that if you change your ways, you might go to heaven, which opening government conceives people care about. That's the point where people might try to escape, or if there is a minimal employment opportunity in the next neighborhood, they might take it, or they might turn themselves to police. They say three or four years in prison and try to move somewhere else, maybe collaborate with law enforcement to do the right thing, to repent, and to go on the right path.

But if you are denouncing them and doing it publicly, as opening government says, then the narrative you're pushing is they're too far gone, too far into sin, that even the house of God doesn't believe in you anymore. This is when you tell them that they're cut off from any redemption. At that point, there is no hope and no sense in taking the metaphysical, other path, another world because you're told it doesn't exist for you anymore because you're too far gone. It also affects how you behave. Note that church members, like priests, can push you to be less violent, can tell you, "I recognize, my son, you are doing this out of necessity, but you will sin if you harm innocents. Do what you must, but try to minimize the damage." But also the idea that if you go to the church, if you sing with these people every weekend, if they're part of your congregation and your flock, you're hesitant to harm them when you don't have to. When you're excommunicated by this church, probably your only source of hope in a life of crime and constant fear, you're frustrated, you're angry, you take it out on other people, and you cause more damage.

Lastly, and probably most importantly, churches provide an insane amount of services to people, stuff like medical clinics, stuff like basic health education, basic literacy, donations, sponsoring meals, connections to other people in the church who maybe know someone in the next city who can lend you a job. These are ways in which people access opportunities that get them away from a life of crime and allow them to leave the gangs. When you push them away from the church, they will not access those things and therefore are more likely to stay within those gangs. But more importantly, and this is third-party harm that they cannot justify, even in their best-case scenario, their family is less likely to access those services as well. Personally, because of OG's own mechanism, you're publicly denouncing this guy; this family then becomes the symbol of something that has burst out, literally the seed of sin, someone whom even the priest doesn't think he can turn to the right path. This person should not be in our congregation because they are violating its entity and its clarity. But secondly, the family itself is probably frustrated at the church, angry at the church; they feel abandoned by it, and they don't want to access those services. So even the innocents do not get the services they would otherwise get.

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

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