(February 17, 2017 at 12:36 am)InquiringMind Wrote:

(February 16, 2017 at 12:29 pm)Aristocatt Wrote: It would be nice if the OP could define oppression.  

And with this, I believe, we come to the crux of the matter.  

The vast majority of those who claim to be oppressed have their basic needs met.  So what, exactly, is the oppressive system denying them?

I believe, for present political purposes, and for the purposes of the Oppression Olympics, I will define "oppression" as lack of social status.  

So that's really the whole thing.  People feel oppressed because they are regarded as being low-status.  Remember Maslow's hierarchy of needs?  These people have their physical needs, security needs, and belongingness needs met.  So they turn their attention to their esteem needs, a.k.a. the desire for status.

The trouble with competitions for status is that they are always zero-sum games.  In all status battles, there is always a winner and a loser.  Right now being high status, according to the superficial external criteria, is to be white, straight, male, of Christian heritage (even if you are atheist) and cisgendered.  Any deviation from that will lower your status.  

The thing is, I don't see a solution to this problem, because competitions for status are always zero-sum games.  I guess that all I can really do is thank the Cosmos that I have the status associated with being a cisgendered white male, and live the best life I can.

So having your basic needs met implies that you can't be oppressed?

Just as a wild example here, what if there were a law in place that made the maximum wage of African Americans $25 an hour.  And the minimum wage for the nation were $15 an hour.  In this fictional society lets say the CPI is roughly the equivalent of the US today, and there is full employment.
Based on your initial response, the maximum African American wage law would not be oppression because their basic needs are being met in this fictional society?

Sorry, I just don't see how having ones basic needs being met means that someone can't have a legitimate grievance about their oppression.

I can't really respond to the rest of the post if I can't clarify the above point with you, but I'll give it a shot anyway.  
What I can infer from what you said above, is that
1) Oppression can only happen if a group of people is not having their basic needs met.
2) Oppression of social status is not oppression.
If that's the case, you didn't really define oppression, you provided examples of what oppression is and is not.  

Maybe you could spell this out for me, because if you provided a robust definition of oppression in the above quote, it flew over my head.

Catt, the only definition of oppression you're going to get out of Mind there is one that allows him to dismiss it.  

The definition of oppression I see used most in established dictionaries is something words to the effect of this - "consistent unfair treatment of an individual or group, especially where there is a misuse of political power". It's usually more or less that.

I truly don't think very many people (I won't say *none*) are actually oppressed in The Western World, we're just not. Literally the only group I think even have a semi-decent claim to the word is perhaps black people.

I will never say there are no problems and that there's no discrimination, because that's a blatant lie, you don't have to look that far to find a genuine case discrimination, and with Trump in office that's probably getting worse now. We have a right and genuine case to discuss these issues and I won't take that away from people. That said, I dislike people throwing big words like "oppression" and "patriarchy" and even "racism" and "homophobia" around lightly, because they lose all meaning and get trivialised. While yes it's kinda shitty and we can definitely criticise it, I'm reluctant to call Christian cake bakers refusing service to gays "oppression", while gays and lesbians are being butchered by the state in Saudi Arabia. They are not fucking comparible on any level.

If the biggest issue you have to cry over is that someone "misgendered" you as a "she" instead of a "zie" you're not doing too badly honey.

If you'll recall, it was the cake baker crying about being oppressed, lol.

Quote:verb (used with object)
1.
to burden with cruel or unjust impositions or restraints; subject to a burdensome or harsh exercise of authority or power:

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/oppressed

So, perhaps black people...but nobody else? I'd go with "definitely blacks, and definitely many others" myself. Some Folks™ in Saudi Arabia have it real bad, sure, that doesn't make what goes on in the west "not oppression". That, would be the crybaby theory of dismissal. Apathy at it's finest.

(February 17, 2017 at 1:09 am)Khemikal Wrote: If you'll recall, it was the cake baker crying about being oppressed, lol.

Well yeah I guess so, and that was pathetic too haha

To some degree I see it, like I said I'd never deny there's discrimination against almost everyone from time to time. There is a difference between discrimination and "oppression" though, in my opinion it's "oppression" when basic human rights are taken away.

If you have a society where you deem every small thing something big like "oppression", you end up with a point where that word won't mean anything anymore. "Racist" is a good example of this. We've had 20 or 30 years now where "that's racist." has just been accepted as a profound argument that ends discussions. We're now at a point where that word just doesn't mean anything, because it's been so trivialised and is a total non-argument from over-use. People are starting to just shrug off accusations of it, because they know they'll be accused of it whatever they say, sometimes before they even say anything at all ("ALL white people are racist"). In a society where everything is branded racist... "nothing is racist", people understandably start a defensive backlash, and now race-relations are the worst they've been for decades. We've created that monster by stripping the word of all meaning and liberally throwing it around at every opportunity.

So continue to label everything "oppression", that's fine... see the results of it in another 20 years.

If I am understanding you right Regina; the point you are making, is that having all these groups coming out and claiming that they are being oppressed, is diminishing more legitimate claims of oppression like gay men in SA being executed. It seems like the SA issue is so so so much worse than non-binary gender pronouns that it deserves a distinct word wholly different from whatever is happening to people that want to be addressed with a non-binary gender pronoun

E.g. I personally know a lot of shitty people. I call them shitty people. I do not know anyone that I would call evil. And I have never called anyone evil. Similarly you might say there are a lot of marginalized groups out there, but for the most part in Western societies, the marginalization of that group is not so pervasive that it deserves to be called oppression.

I think there is some merit to that. Though I wouldn't agree with it on the whole, if that is the point you are trying to make.

Edit: Maybe using the Christian cake makers is a better example than the non-binary gender example. Either way, correct me if I misunderstood.

(February 17, 2017 at 12:58 am)Regina Wrote: If the biggest issue you have to cry over is that someone "misgendered" you as a "she" instead of a "zie" you're not doing too badly honey.

Yeah, this isn't the oppression I'm ever talking about. This just requires a simple correction while I move on with my day. Is this the only complaint you hear from transgender people, though? How about:

1: Denial of access to treatment
2: Harassment and unfair treatment by police
3: High homicide rate
4: Lack of occupational protections and low chances of being hired in the first place
5: Heavily excessive mistreatment and abuse of transgender prisoners
6: Denial of housing options
7: Denial of loans

There's a few points to start you off that actually do matter. This isn't a competition, either. I want everyone to feel like they matter. Right now I don't seem to matter, and that is a problem.

This isn't some pointless hand-waving to get attention, either, because I hate attention. The only time I will bring this up is when people who mock me bring it up in the first place (that means people like you).

(February 17, 2017 at 12:50 am)Aristocatt Wrote: Sorry, I just don't see how having ones basic needs being met means that someone can't have a legitimate grievance about their oppression.

Actually, you proved my point.  They aren't being denied the necessities of life.  They are being denied status, which is exactly what I was saying.  Oppression today means being low status.  You can live just fine on $50k a year,  but you'll never be high status with that income. 

Being "high status" is not a basic human right.  People are owed basic dignity and the necessities of life, but they are not owed high status.  Status is something that we compete for.  In my view, the Oppression Olympics is about people demanding high status even though they've nothing to earn it.  It's a way of competing for status, and a pretty crappy way if you ask me.

The reason that denying someone status is not oppression is that high status is not something that you are fundamentally entitled to.

(February 17, 2017 at 1:12 am)Regina Wrote:

(February 17, 2017 at 1:09 am)Khemikal Wrote: If you'll recall, it was the cake baker crying about being oppressed, lol.

Well yeah I guess so, and that was pathetic too haha

To some degree I see it, like I said I'd never deny there's discrimination against almost everyone from time to time. There is a difference between discrimination and "oppression" though, in my opinion it's "oppression" when basic human rights are taken away.

If you have a society where you deem every small thing something big like "oppression", you end up with a point where that word won't mean anything anymore. "Racist" is a good example of this. We've had 20 or 30 years now where "that's racist." has just been accepted as a profound argument that ends discussions. We're now at a point where that word just doesn't mean anything, because it's been so trivialised and is a total non-argument from over-use. People are starting to just shrug off accusations of it, because they know they'll be accused of it whatever they say, sometimes before they even say anything at all ("ALL white people are racist").  In a society where everything is branded racist... "nothing is racist", people understandably start a defensive backlash, and now race-relations are the worst they've been for decades. We've created that monster by stripping the word of all meaning and liberally throwing it around at every opportunity.

So continue to label everything "oppression", that's fine... see the results of it in another 20 years.

I missed this post when I made my previous post.

It's an interesting perspective, I don't think conflating the two is really very compelling though.
I feel like calling someone "privileged" would be akin to calling someone racist in this scenario.

I don't have time to make a full argument on this.  I'll try to respond more fully later.

(February 17, 2017 at 2:27 am)Jesster Wrote:

(February 17, 2017 at 12:58 am)Regina Wrote: If the biggest issue you have to cry over is that someone "misgendered" you as a "she" instead of a "zie" you're not doing too badly honey.

Yeah, this isn't the oppression I'm ever talking about. This just requires a simple correction while I move on with my day. Is this the only complaint you hear from transgender people, though? How about:

1: Denial of access to treatment
2: Harassment and unfair treatment by police
3: High homicide rate
4: Lack of occupational protections and low chances of being hired in the first place
5: Heavily excessive mistreatment and abuse of transgender prisoners
6: Denial of housing options
7: Denial of loans

There's a few points to start you off that actually do matter. This isn't a competition, either. I want everyone to feel like they matter. Right now I don't seem to matter, and that is a problem.

This isn't some pointless hand-waving to get attention, either, because I hate attention. The only time I will bring this up is when people who mock me bring it up in the first place (that means people like you).

Just to point out, I may be totally wrong but I don't see Regina addressing you or all transsexuals.  The example was of someone who wants to be addressed by a gender neutral pronoun instead of being called she.  And pointing out that this, in and of itself, isn't exactly an example of harsh prolonged unjust treatment is pretty accurate.