I think that’s literally true. Instead of just polarizing more and more across the same two groups of people, you polarize across different axis when a new social issue comes. And so in Taiwan, we’ve been very intentional in phrasing our social conversations so that it’s always possible for people who are deeply opposed to each other. Like during our marriage equality debate, which took three referendum and one constitutional court and many citizens petitions and initiatives for us to find the crux, the bridging statement, which is both sides care about family, I guess. And one side doesn’t want the kinship relationship in the confucian tradition to be polluted by homosexuals, and the other side wants individual liberties and rights and the same state protection and everything, but they actually don’t quite care about kinship relations. So the solution, once we find a bridging statement is to design a specific act for same sex union marriages, actually, that says it’s applying everything from the civil code except the chapters about kinship. And then this made both sides very happy. And so this idea of finding not just continuously different polarizing axis, but also systemically, sometimes using AI language models to design the bridging statement that people can all live with and make that the topic of prebunking of government led conversations and so on, I think is a burden to politicians because then their base keep increasing, they become everybody’s politician.

Keyboard shortcuts

j previous speech k next speech