3 ms·

>oppression is unavoidable Otherwise very nicely put, but surely there is a useful distinction between "not getting what you want" and "oppression"! I think we

>oppression is unavoidable Otherwise very nicely put, but surely there is a useful distinction between "not getting what you want" and "oppression"! I think we can all agree that even losing the vote on every issue is far preferable to losing the ability to vote on any issue. But that's not true if, by losing a vote, or a court case, or an administrative decision, you consider yourself 'oppressed'. You lost, true. Maybe unfairly. But that's necessary but not sufficient to prove oppression! Like, if I could wave a magic wand and grant all American voters the (apparent) super-power of gracefully losing, I would. If every loss is oppression, then winning becomes a moral imperative, possibly requiring escalation to violence. No-one wants to live in that world, so we need to give people a way to take their licks at the polls and then work together to solve the world's problems. And you know what, if you want to go to war over abortion, have at it, but do you really want to die on that hill? Aren't there issues that are more urgent, and more clearly dire than abortion? Or gay people? Or racist people? Aren't we ALL kind of in the same boat with respect to climate change, nuclear armaggedon, income inequality and the backsliding of democracies into autocracies? And aren't all of these at least 5 orders-of-magnitude more important than whether or not a trans woman can compete in NCAA sport? (Why don't we hear our senators debating the important issues of the day? Why aren't they erudite men, well versed in many fields of endeavor, hosting daily podcasts of debates, singly and in groups? Is this not their job? And isn't it our job to second-guess all of them mercilessly??)

Rury 5y ago
>Otherwise very nicely put, but surely there is a useful distinction between "not getting what you want" and "oppression"! Wants themselves do have ranks, as does the amount of oppression felt by not getting them. As you can imagine, there are likely some people who want 2nd vacation homes, but would prefer not having a 2nd home over not having food if they were ever forced into a situation where they had to compromise. But it's not as black and white as you'd might think. People don't all share the same wants, let alone to the same degree. There are people in this world who would prefer to own 3 homes not caring that there are homeless people wanting just 1 (greed). There are people out there who prefer to go without buying food, dumpster dive, and work minimum wage jobs despite having better offers, all in order to save up to buy a house (I personally know a guy - and this is pride). People who like to go without food (ie fast) for weeks (me). And yet, people who prefer to remain homeless, people who want to help the homeless, and people who don't want to help. >If every loss is oppression, then winning becomes a moral imperative, possibly requiring escalation to violence Whether something is a moral imperative is subject to opinion - whether you personally deem it so. But yes, especially at some extreme point, that is reality, and you cannot escape it. This is exactly the sort of thing political philosophers such as Hobbes and Locke argued in their social contract theories. It's why when loss is deemed to be so terribly bad under tyrannical governments, that there are violent revolutions. It's the reason for wars. It's literally what lead to the foundation of the United States. That said, you can learn to go without most wants. It's what Buddhist monks teach and practice. Additionally, wants have ranks, as I mentioned above. So winning is not always a moral imperative for everyone in every case. Some people simply don't care that much about certain topics, and don't care if they lose the outcome. >No-one wants to live in that world Yes, that's why true Anarchy doesn't last long. Anarchy, or the state of nature, can often be brutally violent. Wild animals often kill each other just for fun, it's called surplus killing. Power hierarchies naturally form within same species, just to avoid constantly having to violently fight to determine the outcomes for conflicts. The suffering of being subjugated is often preferred to the suffering of being violently maimed (or mere risk of it) by your neighbor, but pushed to a point it can obviously flip, leading you back into a revolution. As you put it, no one wants to live in that violent world, (at least not very long), so a hierarchy eventually forms in order to avoid having to live in it. >Aren't we ALL kind of in the same boat with respect to climate change ... Yes and no depending on how you look at it. Do we all have opinions on those topics? Yes. Do they affect us in some way? Yes. Do we all share the same opinions over them? No. Do we all rank those issues at the same level of importance? Probably relatively to some degree, but ultimately no.

Rury 5y ago

>Otherwise very nicely put, but surely there is a useful distinction between "not getting what you want" and "oppression"! Wants themselves do have ranks, as does the amount of oppression felt by not getting them. As you can imagine, there are likely some people who want 2nd vacation homes, but would prefer not having a 2nd home over not having food if they were ever forced into a situation where they had to compromise. But it's not as black and white as you'd might think. People don't all share the same wants, let alone to the same degree. There are people in this world who would prefer to own 3 homes not caring that there are homeless people wanting just 1 (greed). There are people out there who prefer to go without buying food, dumpster dive, and work minimum wage jobs despite having better offers, all in order to save up to buy a house (I personally know a guy - and this is pride). People who like to go without food (ie fast) for weeks (me). And yet, people who prefer to remain homeless, people who want to help the homeless, and people who don't want to help. >If every loss is oppression, then winning becomes a moral imperative, possibly requiring escalation to violence Whether something is a moral imperative is subject to opinion - whether you personally deem it so. But yes, especially at some extreme point, that is reality, and you cannot escape it. This is exactly the sort of thing political philosophers such as Hobbes and Locke argued in their social contract theories. It's why when loss is deemed to be so terribly bad under tyrannical governments, that there are violent revolutions. It's the reason for wars. It's literally what lead to the foundation of the United States. That said, you can learn to go without most wants. It's what Buddhist monks teach and practice. Additionally, wants have ranks, as I mentioned above. So winning is not always a moral imperative for everyone in every case. Some people simply don't care that much about certain topics, and don't care if they lose the outcome. >No-one wants to live in that world Yes, that's why true Anarchy doesn't last long. Anarchy, or the state of nature, can often be brutally violent. Wild animals often kill each other just for fun, it's called surplus killing. Power hierarchies naturally form within same species, just to avoid constantly having to violently fight to determine the outcomes for conflicts. The suffering of being subjugated is often preferred to the suffering of being violently maimed (or mere risk of it) by your neighbor, but pushed to a point it can obviously flip, leading you back into a revolution. As you put it, no one wants to live in that violent world, (at least not very long), so a hierarchy eventually forms in order to avoid having to live in it. >Aren't we ALL kind of in the same boat with respect to climate change ... Yes and no depending on how you look at it. Do we all have opinions on those topics? Yes. Do they affect us in some way? Yes. Do we all share the same opinions over them? No. Do we all rank those issues at the same level of importance? Probably relatively to some degree, but ultimately no.