United States Politics Thread 46

[Raphael]

Am I the only person who is very uncomfortable with labeling groups in which membership is involuntary as "the Oppressor"? To me one should be solely judged for one's own voluntary commissions and omissions, and in particular one should not be held responsible for things one is born into or for the actions of others over whom one does not have control who are members of a group in which one's membership is involuntary. There are a wide range of groups, which I need not list here (you know what they are), where I see people indicate that the group is collectively "the Oppressor" and one is in effect responsible for the actions of other members of such groups simply by being born into them, and I really dislike this.

You're not the only one. I'm generally a good deal more sympathetic to the current anti-oppression Left than you are, but this assumption that people are born morally right or morally wrong based on which demographic groups they're born into goes too far even for me. It is unjust, it is unfair, it is wrong, it makes no sense, and it isn't even politically smart.

[Linguoboy]

Am I the only person who is very uncomfortable with labeling groups in which membership is involuntary as "the Oppressor"?

Am I the only one confused by this apparent non sequitur since the only person to use "oppressor" in the current discussion is you?

[Travis B.]

Am I the only person who is very uncomfortable with labeling groups in which membership is involuntary as "the Oppressor"?

Am I the only one confused by this apparent non sequitur since the only person to use "oppressor" in the current discussion is you?

Yes, it may have been somewhat off-topic, but I was not going to start a new thread for this.

It was more a general thought, about how various categories of people are thought of as morally worse, and other categories of people are thought of as morally better, even though membership in these groups of people is not voluntary. Think of it as if you took the traditional hierarchy and inverted it.

[Raphael]

Think of it as if you took the traditional hierarchy and inverted it.

More stuff in that general vein: some of the current anti-oppression discourse seems to basically accept the claims made by 19th- and early 20th century bigots about how different groups of people are like, and just turns the conclusions those old-time bigots arrived at about the "value" of different groups on their head. E. g. "white males are rational and logical, women and POCs are emotional and intuitive, therefore, being emotional and intuitive is better than being rational and logical!" And sometimes, the people promoting that stuff are themselves white and see themselves as antiracist.

[Travis B.]

It seems like within the "social justice" movement the left-liberal value that all people ought to be born with equal rights, equal opportunities, and equal responsibilities, and if they are not it is an injustice has been supplanted by favoring some groups over others because they are the "right" groups - the only difference from the old bigots is what those "right" groups are and how favoring those groups is justified.

[masako]

It seems like within the "social justice" movement the left-liberal value that all people ought to be born with equal rights, equal opportunities, and equal responsibilities, and if they are not it is an injustice has been supplanted by favoring some groups over others because they are the "right" groups - the only difference from the old bigots is what those "right" groups are and how favoring those groups is justified.

This is what bigots would like to believe, but tolerance does not have to mean tolerating hate, especially when it manifests as active (often violent) oppression.

[Raphael]

but tolerance does not have to mean tolerating hate, especially when it manifests as active (often violent) oppression.

As far as I can tell, Travis didn't claim it does.

[Travis B.]

It seems like within the "social justice" movement the left-liberal value that all people ought to be born with equal rights, equal opportunities, and equal responsibilities, and if they are not it is an injustice has been supplanted by favoring some groups over others because they are the "right" groups - the only difference from the old bigots is what those "right" groups are and how favoring those groups is justified.

This is what bigots would like to believe

Rightists often pay lip service to "equality" these days, but they certainly do not sincerely believe in it (as they really believe that some groups are more equal but are often loath to openly admit it these days when they know other people are listening), considering their defense of the status quo in which, say, Black people are regularly shot by police and others simply for being Black (and hence Black people do not have equal rights in reality).

but tolerance does not have to mean tolerating hate, especially when it manifests as active (often violent) oppression.

The paradox of tolerance is that for tolerance to survive intolerance must not be tolerated, and this is something that I very much recognize. But I am not sure how this relates to what you responded to.

[Linguoboy]

Am I the only person who is very uncomfortable with labeling groups in which membership is involuntary as "the Oppressor"?

Am I the only one confused by this apparent non sequitur since the only person to use "oppressor" in the current discussion is you?

Yes, it may have been somewhat off-topic, but I was not going to start a new thread for this.

I'd prefer if you did, since unless you have specific examples this is at best only tangentially related to US politics. Also, since it's a topic you like to revisit every couple of months, it would be useful to have it collocated in its own thread so I could easily copypaste my past replies.

Think of it as if you took the traditional hierarchy and inverted it.

More stuff in that general vein: some of the current anti-oppression discourse

Name these "some" and quote their actual words (preferably in a different thread) or else you're just wasting everyone's time.

[Raphael]

Name these "some" and quote their actual words (preferably in a different thread) or else you're just wasting everyone's time.

Given what people you seem to hang out with, I'm pretty sure you've come across examples of what I mean yourself, and the main reason you don't remember them right now is the phenomenon known as confirmation bias. You don't notice this stuff because you don't want to notice it.

Besides, can you name the "everyone" whose time I'm supposedly wasting?

Can you tell me when talking about bigotry, opposition to bigotry, and well-meant but perhaps somewhat misguided attempts at opposing bigotry became off-topic in a US politics thread?

Can you name a discussion on this Board, or anywhere on the internet for that matter, that wouldn't come across as a "waste of time" to at least some people?

[Linguoboy]

Name these "some" and quote their actual words (preferably in a different thread) or else you're just wasting everyone's time.

Given what people you seem to hang out with, I'm pretty sure you've come across examples of what I mean yourself, and the main reason you don't remember them right now is the phenomenon known as confirmation bias. You don't notice this stuff because you don't want to notice it.

I actually can't, that's why I asked.

This level of argumentation is definitely a waste of *my* time. If you'd like to have an actual discussion of this topic sometime (you know, with the bare minimum standard of evidence you'd expect from a middle school debate society), you can still hit me up.

[Raphael]

I actually can't, that's why I asked.

This level of argumentation is definitely a waste of *my* time. If you'd like to have an actual discussion of this topic sometime (you know, with the bare minimum standard of evidence you'd expect from a middle school debate society), you can still hit me up.

Sure:

https://www.slowboring.com/p/tema-okun

[masako]

but tolerance does not have to mean tolerating hate, especially when it manifests as active (often violent) oppression.

As far as I can tell, Travis didn't claim it does.

Yeah, and as far as I can tell my response was a non-sequitur, not necessarily meant to be a refutation.

But I am not sure how this relates to what you responded to.

I may have misread that you were roughly equating oppressive bigotry with ""leftists"" not wanting to tolerate the same. Don't worry though, Raphael was there to put me in my place.

[Travis B.]

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... ty/614146/

[Travis B.]

I may have misread that you were roughly equating oppressive bigotry with ""leftists"" not wanting to tolerate the same. Don't worry though, Raphael was there to put me in my place.

What I was stating is that I dislike reactions to oppressive bigotry which replace just one hierarchy with another, in that I believe in equality of rights, opportunity, and responsibilties for all (and I do not mean the fake "equality" that rightists insincerely claim to espouse when put on the spot). Just because the oppressive bigots believe that some people are more equal does not mean that we should just claim that different people are more equal. And I do not see how you saw that believing in equality for all, and opposing liberals and leftists who do not actually believe in that, constitutes "tolerating hate".

[masako]

What I was stating is that I dislike reactions to oppressive bigotry which replace just one hierarchy with another, in that I believe in equality of rights, opportunity, and responsibilties for all (and I do not mean the fake "equality" that rightists insincerely claim to espouse when put on the spot).

OK, got it, makes sense now.

Just because the oppressive bigots believe that some people are more equal does not mean that we should just claim that different people are more equal.

Whatya mean by "different people are more equal"? That's a weird turn-of-phrase to my ears.

And I do not see how you saw that believing in equality for all, and opposing liberals and leftists who do not actually believe in that, constitutes "tolerating hate".

You're right, that's not what I saw.

I am curious though, how can you assert that you verifiably know for certain what someone else thinks?

[Travis B.]

Just because the oppressive bigots believe that some people are more equal does not mean that we should just claim that different people are more equal.

Whatya mean by "different people are more equal"? That's a weird turn-of-phrase to my ears.

My use of "more equal" was taken from Animal Farm.

[Travis B.]

I am curious though, how can you assert that you verifiably know for certain what someone else thinks?

You can only infer from what someone says and does, of course.

[masako]

Just because the oppressive bigots believe that some people are more equal does not mean that we should just claim that different people are more equal.

Whatya mean by "different people are more equal"? That's a weird turn-of-phrase to my ears.

My use of "more equal" was taken from Animal Farm.

Appropriate, I guess, then. Sorta.

[Linguoboy]

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... ty/614146/

I'm not sure what this tendentious book review is supposed to be evidence for, so I'll just point out that this bit has aged particularly badly:

An especially weird passage is where DiAngelo breezily decries the American higher-education system, in which, she says, no one ever talks about racism. “I can get through graduate school without ever discussing racism,” she writes. “I can graduate from law school without ever discussing racism. I can get through a teacher-education program without ever discussing racism.” I am mystified that DiAngelo thinks this laughably antique depiction reflects any period after roughly 1985. For example, an education-school curriculum neglecting racism in our times would be about as common as a home unwired for electricity.