3 ms·

I don't think anyone disputes historical oppression (or at least those who do are outliers), I think the concern is that the identity devotees deliberately try

I don't think anyone disputes historical oppression (or at least those who do are outliers), I think the concern is that the identity devotees deliberately try to conflate real, historical oppression with things like women making different career choices than men. Their propensity to conclude oppression at any sign of a disparity (but only disparities that disadvantage one of "their groups"; e.g., wage gap is oppression but not workplace fatality gap) and constant mischaracterizations of opposing arguments ruins their credibility as advocates for real social justice. To put it bluntly, the "social justice left" appears to be more concerned with hating "white dudes" than it is with addressing actual social justice problems, and when a huge portion of your voting base is comprised of people you appear to hate or at least treat very badly, you should not expect to win an election.

wpietri 9y ago
Plenty of people do dispute historical oppression. Plenty of people deny outright that it was oppression at all. They think it was better back then. And they are not outliers. But if you're claiming that historical oppression totally ended at some point, what date do you believe that was? As a white dude, I disagree with your reading of the American left. I don't think I've ever experienced a personal hate for myself. They do take issues with a lot of the behaviors of a group that has benefited from and sustains oppression. But I object to that too.
- weberc2 9y ago
  > Plenty of people do dispute historical oppression. Plenty of people deny outright that it was oppression at all. They think it was better back then. And they are not outliers. I would be surprised of slavery deniers or any comparable entity comprised more than a tenth of a percent of the U.S. population, but I'm happy to be disproven. > But if you're claiming that historical oppression totally ended at some point, what date do you believe that was? It depends on how you precisely define "historical oppression". The most common definition I'm aware of refers to slavery, Jim Crowe laws, lynchings, etc. Those things largely ended in the 70s in most places in the U.S., but I'll go so far as to say the 90s. > They do take issues with a lot of the behaviors of a group that has benefited from and sustains oppression. But I object to that too. This is sort of my point. I have no idea what you possibly mean by "oppression" or "benefited from" or "sustains". Team "identity" has watered the term down such that I have no idea if you're talking about real oppression (probably not, since that would be newsworthy) or merely women having different career priorities than men. I'm inclined to think if you were talking about meaningful oppression, you could call it by name and wouldn't need to rely on the shock value of the word 'oppression' to advance your position. If you want to (for example) make things better for inner city black communities, come grab a shovel. But no one is oppressing these communities nor do they have an incentive to do so--poor communities are expensive. If poverty were an easy problem, it would be solved. People who talk about "oppression" and "structural racism" seem to think that wealth is the default state of man, and that poverty can only be explained by oppression.
  - wpietri 9y ago
    You note the circularity of your definition, right? Oppression is something that is over. What's oppression? Those horrible things in the past. That rhetorical tactic works wonderfully at any point in American history. "Why don't you [group name] just shut up and enjoy this now perfectly fair society we white men have built for you? Why keep dwelling on the past?" I believe that you don't know what I mean. But that's because you don't understand the history. If you'd like to understand, try taking a course. It's not an easy subject, but it's worth the time. Your local college surely offers something. Mine does: https://www.usfca.edu/catalog/undergraduate/arts-sciences/interdisciplinary-minors/african-american-studies https://www.usfca.edu/catalog/undergraduate/arts-sciences/in...
    - weberc2 9y ago
      > You note the circularity of your definition, right? Oppression is something that is over. What's oppression? Those horrible things in the past. I think you misunderstood me; I never said any such thing. Historical oppression is simply oppression that happened in the past. I'm not using "oppression" outside of its normal context. > But that's because you don't understand the history. If you'd like to understand, try taking a course. It's not an easy subject, but it's worth the time. Your local college surely offers something. You're being awfully condescending for someone whose argument is roughly "uh... history and stuff".
      - wpietri 9y ago
        Ok, back to the beginning: You were dumping on "identity politics" as if it were some weird new thing invented by the left. My point is that by any reasonable definition, identity politics has been sustained and enforced by the right in the US. For centuries. It is the left that has been trying to tear it down. The move you're making is known technically as "erasure". Instead of admitting that the status quo is the result of energetic pro-white, pro-male, pro-rich stacking of the deck and honestly proceeding from there, you erase the history and treat pro-white-male identity politics as normal. That makes any deviation from or challenge to it supposedly problematic "identity politics". Even though the very identities at stake, like "black", were constructed by white men, you blame the victims. You also conflate "real" oppression with "historical" oppression. Your effective definition of oppression isn't some objective measure of misuse of power. It's "the bad shit in the past that is definitely now over". Which is an incredibly convenient definition for your line of argument. These are only plausible rhetorical moves if you don't really understand the history. You are making bold pronouncements on a topic you obviously don't understand. Why? From here it looks like motivated reasoning with a goal of protecting the status quo. Thus my suggestion that you go take a class. Which I still recommend.

wpietri 9y ago

Plenty of people do dispute historical oppression. Plenty of people deny outright that it was oppression at all. They think it was better back then. And they are not outliers. But if you're claiming that historical oppression totally ended at some point, what date do you believe that was? As a white dude, I disagree with your reading of the American left. I don't think I've ever experienced a personal hate for myself. They do take issues with a lot of the behaviors of a group that has benefited from and sustains oppression. But I object to that too.

weberc2 9y ago
> Plenty of people do dispute historical oppression. Plenty of people deny outright that it was oppression at all. They think it was better back then. And they are not outliers. I would be surprised of slavery deniers or any comparable entity comprised more than a tenth of a percent of the U.S. population, but I'm happy to be disproven. > But if you're claiming that historical oppression totally ended at some point, what date do you believe that was? It depends on how you precisely define "historical oppression". The most common definition I'm aware of refers to slavery, Jim Crowe laws, lynchings, etc. Those things largely ended in the 70s in most places in the U.S., but I'll go so far as to say the 90s. > They do take issues with a lot of the behaviors of a group that has benefited from and sustains oppression. But I object to that too. This is sort of my point. I have no idea what you possibly mean by "oppression" or "benefited from" or "sustains". Team "identity" has watered the term down such that I have no idea if you're talking about real oppression (probably not, since that would be newsworthy) or merely women having different career priorities than men. I'm inclined to think if you were talking about meaningful oppression, you could call it by name and wouldn't need to rely on the shock value of the word 'oppression' to advance your position. If you want to (for example) make things better for inner city black communities, come grab a shovel. But no one is oppressing these communities nor do they have an incentive to do so--poor communities are expensive. If poverty were an easy problem, it would be solved. People who talk about "oppression" and "structural racism" seem to think that wealth is the default state of man, and that poverty can only be explained by oppression.
- wpietri 9y ago
  You note the circularity of your definition, right? Oppression is something that is over. What's oppression? Those horrible things in the past. That rhetorical tactic works wonderfully at any point in American history. "Why don't you [group name] just shut up and enjoy this now perfectly fair society we white men have built for you? Why keep dwelling on the past?" I believe that you don't know what I mean. But that's because you don't understand the history. If you'd like to understand, try taking a course. It's not an easy subject, but it's worth the time. Your local college surely offers something. Mine does: https://www.usfca.edu/catalog/undergraduate/arts-sciences/interdisciplinary-minors/african-american-studies https://www.usfca.edu/catalog/undergraduate/arts-sciences/in...
  - weberc2 9y ago
    > You note the circularity of your definition, right? Oppression is something that is over. What's oppression? Those horrible things in the past. I think you misunderstood me; I never said any such thing. Historical oppression is simply oppression that happened in the past. I'm not using "oppression" outside of its normal context. > But that's because you don't understand the history. If you'd like to understand, try taking a course. It's not an easy subject, but it's worth the time. Your local college surely offers something. You're being awfully condescending for someone whose argument is roughly "uh... history and stuff".
    - wpietri 9y ago
      Ok, back to the beginning: You were dumping on "identity politics" as if it were some weird new thing invented by the left. My point is that by any reasonable definition, identity politics has been sustained and enforced by the right in the US. For centuries. It is the left that has been trying to tear it down. The move you're making is known technically as "erasure". Instead of admitting that the status quo is the result of energetic pro-white, pro-male, pro-rich stacking of the deck and honestly proceeding from there, you erase the history and treat pro-white-male identity politics as normal. That makes any deviation from or challenge to it supposedly problematic "identity politics". Even though the very identities at stake, like "black", were constructed by white men, you blame the victims. You also conflate "real" oppression with "historical" oppression. Your effective definition of oppression isn't some objective measure of misuse of power. It's "the bad shit in the past that is definitely now over". Which is an incredibly convenient definition for your line of argument. These are only plausible rhetorical moves if you don't really understand the history. You are making bold pronouncements on a topic you obviously don't understand. Why? From here it looks like motivated reasoning with a goal of protecting the status quo. Thus my suggestion that you go take a class. Which I still recommend.