1. Both. 2. The "dominant" vs. oppressed false diachotamy gives you away as an ideologue with whom I cannot have a productive discussion. At one time or anothe

1. Both. 2. The "dominant" vs. oppressed false diachotamy gives you away as an ideologue with whom I cannot have a productive discussion. At one time or another we are all the oppressed and we are all the dominant. This ridiculous caste system isn't some static hierarchy that was ordained by God or an inevitability of our history. Race, class, and gender are societal constructions which must be actively sustained to survive. Yet you insist on utilizing the very same categories drawn by racists, which only reinforces the persistence of hierarchy you claim to despise. Finally, dismissing every contrary argument by attributing identity-based motives to your opponent is facile. Categorizing all those who disagree with you as stooges of some eternal shadowy "dominant" cabal is the exact type of unscientific babble that constitutes every conspiracy theory. Most importantly, it is also a very convenient way to turn every argument into an ad hominem based on the race/gender of the speaker. This is what happened: I read a post written by someone who broadly stereotyped millions of people in a racial and gendered fashion, and I raised an objection. It was very simple. The question is, why are you so desperate to make this about "white male dominance"? This is about what the author stated. Is it because you realize your vacuous arguments cannot stand on their own merits, or because you are too insecure to confront the intellectually arid world view which you clutch like a safety blanket? Or do you merely think that the "dominant" persons (as determined by you) simply have no right to a voice at all?