3 ms·

> 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

> 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.
    - weberc2 9y ago
      > You were dumping on "identity politics" as if it were some weird new thing invented by the left. I wasn't. I only said that the left's identity politics probably helped to alienate an important part of their former voting base. > 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. I don't see how we can meaningfully refer to "the right" or "the left" across such a large time span, but I'm not interested in debating it, so I'll concede that point if it's important to you. I certainly agree that from the civil rights era until roughly ten or twenty years ago, the right was generally in favor of identity politics and the left was against it. Since then, the right have largely accepted the "no more identity politics" position (with notable exceptions here and there), and the left has largely regressed to a pro-identity politics (likewise, with notable exceptions). > 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. No, no. You're simply wrong about this. I never said or implied any such thing. I've said repeatedly that white oppression existed throughout history. I'm sure I've been less than clear on other points, but I've been perfectly clear about this one. > 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. Again, I never said any such thing. The only statements I made about oppression is much of what is called oppression today (things like women choosing their own careers) are not actually oppression by any reasonable definition, and this abuse of terminology by the left has made it really hard to identify and talk about legitimate oppression. I never said anything that could be interpreted as "legitimate oppression is that which occurs in the past"; there are certainly forms of legitimate oppression that exist against minorities today--intimidation of minority religions and communities, for example. It does no good to conflate actual oppression with different outcomes from freely-made choices. > 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. I don't appreciate you saying I don't understand this. You've erected blatant strawman after blatant strawman (willfully or accidentally), and you tell me to take a class? Come on, you're not being a good faith participant here. I know there are good, legitimate arguments to be made against my points (and I'm sure you're capable of presenting them). Don't insult me by refuting arguments I never made and then telling me to take a class...

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.
  - weberc2 9y ago
    > You were dumping on "identity politics" as if it were some weird new thing invented by the left. I wasn't. I only said that the left's identity politics probably helped to alienate an important part of their former voting base. > 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. I don't see how we can meaningfully refer to "the right" or "the left" across such a large time span, but I'm not interested in debating it, so I'll concede that point if it's important to you. I certainly agree that from the civil rights era until roughly ten or twenty years ago, the right was generally in favor of identity politics and the left was against it. Since then, the right have largely accepted the "no more identity politics" position (with notable exceptions here and there), and the left has largely regressed to a pro-identity politics (likewise, with notable exceptions). > 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. No, no. You're simply wrong about this. I never said or implied any such thing. I've said repeatedly that white oppression existed throughout history. I'm sure I've been less than clear on other points, but I've been perfectly clear about this one. > 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. Again, I never said any such thing. The only statements I made about oppression is much of what is called oppression today (things like women choosing their own careers) are not actually oppression by any reasonable definition, and this abuse of terminology by the left has made it really hard to identify and talk about legitimate oppression. I never said anything that could be interpreted as "legitimate oppression is that which occurs in the past"; there are certainly forms of legitimate oppression that exist against minorities today--intimidation of minority religions and communities, for example. It does no good to conflate actual oppression with different outcomes from freely-made choices. > 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. I don't appreciate you saying I don't understand this. You've erected blatant strawman after blatant strawman (willfully or accidentally), and you tell me to take a class? Come on, you're not being a good faith participant here. I know there are good, legitimate arguments to be made against my points (and I'm sure you're capable of presenting them). Don't insult me by refuting arguments I never made and then telling me to take a class...