What does "oppression" even mean?
Am I being oppressed, am I oppressing others? Can I be oppressed without even knowing that I am, can I be oppressed if I don't see this oppression as a moral injustice? Do we need to get rid of all oppression?
Please educate me.
Other urls found in this thread:
selforganizedseminar.files.wordpress.com
twitter.com
Well, what have you read about it so far?
It's a sledgehammer used to get cushty positions in slush money for whatever globalist propaganda wants pushed.
Lot's of assumptions and begging the question, and more interestingly, what I found to be a contradiction that destroys the concept.
Let's say that I am oppressing someone, and that this person refuses his oppression, if I were then to talk him into accepting his oppression, would he then still be oppressed?
If the answer is no, then oppression can be solved by perfecting it so that people will accept it, if the answer is yes, then there is no standard for what is oppression and what isn't except for moralistic judgement, the concept of consent would be removed from it.
No, I mean what books have you written?
… Read. Sorry, I'm running a fever.
Discipline and punishment.
It means whatever it is real in your mind.
Material, or lack of it, in favor of the material of those who need it less than anyone. How do I define the latter? Mostly in their own physical health and ability to survive. The more able you are in this case, the more money you have. The less, the less, etc.
It's material.
Oppression is oppression whether the person accepts it or not.
An object, by dint of existing, displaces other objects around it. Up or down are relative terms, and all objects act upon every other object, even if in such small amounts to be unobservable.
"Oppression" has turned into a meaningless word that loosely conveys "you are inconvenient to my desires."
Don't bother trying to work around it.
And this argument becomes as meaningless in repeated observation as much of analytical philosophy does.
There seems to be more to it than simply an inequality of means. Power doesn't work like that. The worst oppression, as I take the term, that I have seen wasn't between billionaire and pleb, but between pleb and pleb.
Which makes it the very opposite of meaningless, it is filled with meaning which overflows into confusion, as happens with all words that are elevated into the full range of the ideological realm.
Wrong. It is oppression, regardless of whether or not it is known; and it remains even if it is not known, whereas there is no knowledge if the oppression is not there.
This conclusion does not follow from the premise. Is it a moral judgment when one says "I am" or "This is"?
Is it then so that people like muslim women or bdsm submissives who live slavish lives are inherently oppressed?
The argument often goes that oppression is a transgression of the will/consent of it's subject, which is taken as an objective quality that does not rely on particular judgement of the transgression itself. Accepted oppression still being oppression takes away this standard, making it a purely moral judgement of power.
Feminist larger faggot vs a fedora
The battle of our time
Keep it classy
Larper
This is irrelevant to the nature of the problem. You cannot discover the essence of something merely by giving "instances" or "examples." That you bring these particulars up to me says more about what you think than it does about the conversation.
By your own premises then the thought-experiment fails. If the agent is still objectively qualified as oppressed then it does not matter again whether they accept it or not. Will is still yet more than consent. You might not consent to being raped, and still you will make efforts to fight back. But even the reverse is true. Technological objects can consent to nature as its responsibility without changing it, e.g. a windmill can harness the energy without overcoming the wind and changing it into a mere resource. Thus the actions of oppression for us should have double significance, not only because it is directed against itself as well as against the other, but also because it is indivisibly the action of one as well as the other.
Give me the essence of a cow without giving me instances of cows.
It does when oppression is taken as being defined by non-acceptance of it's subject as it's parameter, that the acceptance of something is what determines if it is oppression or not.
I really don't see what you are attempting to say about oppression with this seemingly Heideggerian stuff.
The essence of the cow without the cow is pure nothing.
This is so insanely stupid I'm surprised you haven't seen the failure yet.
When offered hot chocolate and you decline are you oppressed because you didn't accept it? No. That's the most stupid thing I've ever heard.
No. It's Hegel.
Now explain what a cow is without using instances of cows. No Hegel babble pls.
I'm surprised you didn't look for fault in your own reading of my post. Let me word it differently.
Does oppression rely on resistance in it's subject? If a person is controlled by someone else, is that person then only oppressed when he resists this control?
This is a vital question when it comes to oppression.
In the language of the liberal "oppression" translates to "merit through struggle". It's the best kind of merit, as it grants social status in a passive manner.
You might also notice the alarming absence of the actor performing the oppression, this is by design.The liberal seeks nothing but approval, validation and consensus, a state that is easily externally defined and prone to manipulation, but that's another conversation.
Within this mentality, the victim of the oppressor cannot be reprimanded, on the basis of empathy, so it's the preferred position to adopt by the liberal.The oppressor, in contrast is a position susceptible of disagreement or conflict, in the case of appointing it to some entity otherwise regarded as liked by your fellow liberals.
To this end, the oppressed remain stable and mostly compete in "magnitude" in a "holier than thou" race to afford themselves the bigger merit, while the oppressors are rotated according to perceived consensus on villainy , or entirely omitted.
The modern definition is "anything a straight white man likes or does".
I don't, or only if you mean "absence of a tangible actor" as it is nearly always the patriarchy, the white supremacy, the gender binary and other Eternal Whites.
I don't see how a minority being unfairly targeted by say, authority figures, isn't oppression. It's just injust by someone with more social power than someone else.
Everybody in this thread seems to have seen a lot of image macros where a woman with died hair says "I HATE WHITE MEN" and mistook that for informed social commentary
injustice*
Could you write something of substance in the next OP
You haven't even defined the words you use.
