ADVERTISEMENT

How the powerful convince you to hate the oppressed.

TheOriginalHappyGoat

Moderator
Moderator
Oct 4, 2010
69,833
45,620
113
Margaritaville
The thing is, Goat, that as the imperial elected head honcho I am not forcing those oppressed people to do those stupid things, and I am not forcing the media to focus on them. Activists such as PETA and anarchists are the worst enemies of their own causes. Yes, MLK got himself arrested and shot, but his approach also got respect and results by forcing those in power to show that they were the thugs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JamieDimonsBalls
The thing is, Goat, that as the imperial elected head honcho I am not forcing those oppressed people to do those stupid things, and I am not forcing the media to focus on them. Activists such as PETA and anarchists are the worst enemies of their own causes. Yes, MLK got himself arrested and shot, but his approach also got respect and results by forcing those in power to show that they were the thugs.
Do you realize that your very response highlights exactly what that article is about - a focus on the fringes that ignores the bulk of the argument?
 
Of course I do. The article is framed in such a way that any response that disagrees with its premis must be so labeled.
No, it isn't written that way. You just responded in the way that the powerful encourage the gullible to respond to all things that might threaten their power.
 
Rock.... Don't tell me what I see. You aren't in my mind. You have yet to add to this discussion. Go drink some coffee and when you come back tell me why I'm wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stollcpa
You're wrong because you disagree with Rock.:)
I would actually like to have a dialogue with him on this - if he is willing to engage on the points rather than simply labeling me as gullible.
 
Do you realize that your very response highlights exactly what that article is about - a focus on the fringes that ignores the bulk of the argument?

I would posit that most people who you're considering "oppressed" are actually oppressed by nothing quite so much as their own decisions and behaviors.

But, then, there's not much political hay to be made from that unfortunate reality.

We are all primarily, though of course not exclusively, the sum of our own actions. That's the core message of one of the immutable laws of the universe: the law of the harvest.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stollcpa
I don't normally share articles from Cracked, because, you know, it's Cracked, but David Wong is a pretty solid writer, regardless of the medium, and he's put out an article explaining how the upper crust successfully turns society against the downtrodden that is worth reading by anyone interested in those things.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-ways-powerful-people-trick-you-into-hating-underdogs/
Failure to launch

The point about the "system" is a construct made to justify behavior and the construct is wrong. Go back and read Michelle Obama's remarks about black kids being unwelcome in museums. Then read about the justifications advanced for that comment. I'm not denying all oppression. But like all factors leading to social and political causes, it is way over-stated and turns into a self- fulfilling prophecy. The majority is responsible for this, not the minority.

The whole argument falls apart.
 
Thanks Goat for a very interesting essay.

One summary of the essay might be...Those with power have convinced a good many us that those without clout deserve to be oppressed.
 
Rock.... Don't tell me what I see. You aren't in my mind. You have yet to add to this discussion. Go drink some coffee and when you come back tell me why I'm wrong.
As Goat pointed out, you employed one of the very techniques the essay described to reject the essay's thesis -- pretty much exactly as the author would have predicted a gulled reader to do. That's not refutation, it's confirmation. Nor is it impossible to dispute the essay's thesis without referencing marginal actors like PETA and anarchists, but a gulled reader would surely think it was. You're right that I'm not a mind reader, but your responses suggest that you've internalized the very outlook the author describes.
 
This piece really underscores something I've long noted about the contemporary left-wing worldview: it approaches pretty much everything through a paradigm of the powerful vs. the powerless...the oppressors vs. the oppressed. I've seen this phenomenon referred to before as "underdogma."

It used to puzzle me how, for instance, any moral person could have the first shred of sympathy for Palestinian people or groups who, if they aren't perpetrating violence on Israeli buses and shopping malls, certainly aren't eager to condemn it when others do. But when you understand the moral blind spot of underdogma, it all makes more sense. Israel, you see, is the oppressor...the Palestinians are the oppressed. As such, that beckons a certain level of understanding for attacks on buses and shopping malls.

Now, clearly, some situations very much should be approached this way. I'm certainly not making a case for oppression of any kind. Nor am I saying true oppression doesn't happen. But I am saying that much -- most? -- of what some call oppression nowadays isn't oppression at all. Instead, the concept of oppression has been hijacked by people who are actually peddling state-brokered egalitarianism. And one thing that's strikingly ironic to me about this is that some of the world's most problematic living conditions -- one might say oppression -- happens under the most devoutly statist/egalitarian governments....like Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, China, etc.

I'm sorry, but Occupy Wall Streeters are not oppressed. They may suck pretty badly at life and are, as such, enduring the results of that suckage. But to blame all that on "the powerful", in pursuit of demanding government lift them from the doldrums of the bed they've made for themselves, is patently absurd. And to confuse this with actual oppression is a slap in the face to those actually suffering from actual oppression.
 
Besides Huelskamp, Huckabee has claimed that gay marriage will lead to the criminalization of Christianity. It has been some years now that Christians in the US have claimed to be an oppressed group.

Having lived in the Memphis area now for over 20 years, a city with lingering racial issues, I see the food stamp stories pop up every few weeks along with the obesity canard.
 
The point I was trying to make is that for the thesis to be correct there must be collusion between those in power (the oppressors) and the media - those who present the unfavorable face of the protests, or at least that they are working separately towards a common purpose. To my knowledge no one is telling the media who or what to cover - the present what will be lapped up by the public, who would much rather see footage of rioting than of peaceful protest - or so the ratings would have us believe.

To that end, groups who take otherwise peaceful protests and turn them into violent (or, in the case of PETA, stupid) events are just as much at cross purposes with the objectives of the protestors as the oppressive government is.

Does an oppressive government capitalize on this by using it as an excuse to not correct injustices? Of course it does, and it doesn't seem to matter too much which party is in power.
 
I find it fascinating how nonresponsive everyone has been so far. The article wasn't about the oppressed. It was about how the rest of us view the oppressed. And, instead, everyone quickly wants to fall back into, ultimately, whether or not their bad situations are their own fault; Doug, crazed and COH all brought up different points, but they all ultimately rested on the assumption that these people aren't oppressed; they just suck. The point of the article was to examine why you view them the way you do. This need to respond to such a request be repeatedly blaming them for their own problems suggests an unwillingness to even do that, perhaps out of disgust for what you might find.
 
I find it fascinating how nonresponsive everyone has been so far. The article wasn't about the oppressed. It was about how the rest of us view the oppressed. And, instead, everyone quickly wants to fall back into, ultimately, whether or not their bad situations are their own fault; Doug, crazed and COH all brought up different points, but they all ultimately rested on the assumption that these people aren't oppressed; they just suck. The point of the article was to examine why you view them the way you do. This need to respond to such a request be repeatedly blaming them for their own problems suggests an unwillingness to even do that, perhaps out of disgust for what you might find.

This is what's called rejecting the premise, Goat. In this case, the premise is that the people discussed in that essay are oppressed.

If you want to talk with me about how I view people who I accept are oppressed by others, then we can have that conversation. But if you want to have a conversation about people who are in bad situations mostly because of a pattern of bad decision-making --- people who have sowed (and thus reaped) much which is bad and little which is good -- then it's a very different conversation.
 
Doug, I disagree. With ability to communicate through a number of channels and to wide audiences so easily today, the media doesn't have to be complicit. Though I recognize that the traditional news outlets are not above chasing sleazy stories. You don't need the media if you have talk shows and blogs feeding their own message. How many times have we seen articles linked on this site that misrepresent the source data once it is referenced. Traditional media has less less influence and I expect trend to continue.
 
This is what's called rejecting the premise, Goat. In this case, the premise is that the people discussed in that essay are oppressed.

If you want to talk with me about how I view people who I accept are oppressed by others, then we can have that conversation. But if you want to have a conversation about people who are in bad situations mostly because of a pattern of bad decision-making --- people who have sowed (and thus reaped) much which is bad and little which is good -- then it's a very different conversation.
Did you actually read the article I linked? Because you're getting hung up on a vocabulary choice I made in the title of my post. It was probably a poor label to use, but I had just gotten up in the middle of the night and was a little hazy still. Anyway, I don't think there's anything controversial about recognizing the fact that some people have more power than others and that some of the less powerful people sometimes complain about it.
 
I don't normally share articles from Cracked, because, you know, it's Cracked, but David Wong is a pretty solid writer, regardless of the medium, and he's put out an article explaining how the upper crust successfully turns society against the downtrodden that is worth reading by anyone interested in those things.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-ways-powerful-people-trick-you-into-hating-underdogs/
Having looked at the essay again

It is shallower and weaker than I first thought.

The first problem is the mixing of "oppressed" and "protesters". These are different populations. They are to be seen, thought about, and treated differently. You fell for this word shift.

The second problem is the belief that only money and wealth begets power and influence. We see that isn't true every day.

The third problem is the notion that failing to impose accountability and hold people responsible for behavior is okay. The soft bigotry of low expectations is real and destructive to huge groups of people.

The fourth problem is that this isn't a racial minority issue. If whites have a privilege, it is the privilege of seeing and treating minorities as our wards. The latest example is the notion that only white Republicans are smart enough to register to vote so let's make registration absolutely effortless.

All of the comes together in the Jesie Hernandez story in Denver. She was a 16 year-old shot and killed by a cop. I'm on my phone so I won't go into it. But her story is easily found. Some people say she would be alive if the cop didn't use deadly force. No, she woul de alive if some responsibility and accountability were in her life. Given her circumstances, she going to die at a young age or be in jail a long time.
 
Having looked at the essay again

It is shallower and weaker than I first thought.

The first problem is the mixing of "oppressed" and "protesters". These are different populations. They are to be seen, thought about, and treated differently. You fell for this word shift.

The second problem is the belief that only money and wealth begets power and influence. We see that isn't true every day.

The third problem is the notion that failing to impose accountability and hold people responsible for behavior is okay. The soft bigotry of low expectations is real and destructive to huge groups of people.

The fourth problem is that this isn't a racial minority issue. If whites have a privilege, it is the privilege of seeing and treating minorities as our wards. The latest example is the notion that only white Republicans are smart enough to register to vote so let's make registration absolutely effortless.

All of the comes together in the Jesie Hernandez story in Denver. She was a 16 year-old shot and killed by a cop. I'm on my phone so I won't go into it. But her story is easily found. Some people say she would be alive if the cop didn't use deadly force. No, she woul de alive if some responsibility and accountability were in her life. Given her circumstances, she going to die at a young age or be in jail a long time.

The first problem is that you're lying when you say you reread the article. Either that, or you weren't paying attention. None of your complaints make any sense in the context of the article I actually linked. Not any sense at all. You have simply responded for the sole purpose of throwing a bunch of catch phrases into the conversation hopes some of them would stick.
 
Did you actually read the article I linked? Because you're getting hung up on a vocabulary choice I made in the title of my post. It was probably a poor label to use, but I had just gotten up in the middle of the night and was a little hazy still. Anyway, I don't think there's anything controversial about recognizing the fact that some people have more power than others and that some of the less powerful people sometimes complain about it.

I did read it, yes. And I reject the premise (actually, a number of premises). I'm not just hung up on your word choice.

I really do believe that people in free societies exercise a whole, whole lot of influence over their destinies and their lots in life. The article rests on the premise that our lot in life is mostly a matter of birthright and in the hands of other, more powerful, people...and that powerless people are, well, powerless to do much about it.

So the primary way I approach struggling people is: (a) what things have you done (or not done) to lead you to a bad place?, and (b) what things can you do (or not do) to get you to a better place?

But it's a helluva lot easier -- not to mention politically potent -- to blame other people
 
  • Like
Reactions: stollcpa
I did read it, yes. And I reject the premise (actually, a number of premises). I'm not just hung up on your word choice.

I really do believe that people in free societies exercise a whole, whole lot of influence over their destinies and their lots in life. The article rests on the premise that our lot in life is mostly a matter of birthright and in the hands of other, more powerful, people...and that powerless people are, well, powerless to do much about it.

So the primary way I approach struggling people is: (a) what things have you done (or not done) to lead you to a bad place?, and (b) what things can you do (or not do) to get you to a better place?

But it's a helluva lot easier -- not to mention politically potent -- to blame other people
Yeah, I don't think that's the premise of the article. A more accurate rendition would be this:

1. In any group of people, some people have less power than others.
2. Sometimes, the less powerful feel they are being stepped on, and complain about it.
3. The more powerful have very specific methods for getting the rest of us to ignore the complainers.

It wasn't just about American society. It was a more general statement. The author used a lot of examples. He brought up Gamergate. Surely you don't think that the way women are sometimes treated in the video game industry is their own fault, right? The fact that men control the industry from top to bottom certainly plays a role. He also mentioned Tienanmen. I'm guessing you don't think the protesters there had no reason to complain and only themselves to blame.

If you don't like applying these concepts to certain segments of society, that's fine, but it's not a rejection of the premise, it's a rejection of a specific application. And when you try to reject the premise in order to avoid having to reject a specific application, that suggests strongly to me that it's because you aren't sure you can actually rejection the application, and therefore would prefer not to deal with it at all.
 
The first problem is that you're lying when you say you reread the article. Either that, or you weren't paying attention. None of your complaints make any sense in the context of the article I actually linked. Not any sense at all. You have simply responded for the sole purpose of throwing a bunch of catch phrases into the conversation hopes some of them would stick.
Agreed

I don't intend for my comments to make sense in the context of the article. I pretty much reject the article premise for many reasons. Mostly though it constructs a theory about why we hate the oppressed that I think is crap. You bought a lot of this because you like what it says.

Shorter article.

We hate the oppressed because of arson, looting, and al sharpton.

The rich and powerful teach this.

Those who disagree with the article do so because of arson, looting and al sharpton.

All any one can say about disagreement is to say "we don't hate people because of arson looting and sharpton" leaving open the premise of hate.

The article is stoopid.
 
Agreed

I don't intend for my comments to make sense in the context of the article. I pretty much reject the article premise for many reasons. Mostly though it constructs a theory about why we hate the oppressed that I think is crap. You bought a lot of this because you like what it says.

Shorter article.

We hate the oppressed because of arson, looting, and al sharpton.

The rich and powerful teach this.

Those who disagree with the article do so because of arson, looting and al sharpton.

All any one can say about disagreement is to say "we don't hate people because of arson looting and sharpton" leaving open the premise of hate.

The article is stoopid.
See my comments to crazed. You didn't understand the article.
 
Yeah, I don't think that's the premise of the article. A more accurate rendition would be this:

1. In any group of people, some people have less power than others.
2. Sometimes, the less powerful feel they are being stepped on, and complain about it.
3. The more powerful have very specific methods for getting the rest of us to ignore the complainers.

It wasn't just about American society. It was a more general statement. The author used a lot of examples. He brought up Gamergate. Surely you don't think that the way women are sometimes treated in the video game industry is their own fault, right? The fact that men control the industry from top to bottom certainly plays a role. He also mentioned Tienanmen. I'm guessing you don't think the protesters there had no reason to complain and only themselves to blame.

If you don't like applying these concepts to certain segments of society, that's fine, but it's not a rejection of the premise, it's a rejection of a specific application. And when you try to reject the premise in order to avoid having to reject a specific application, that suggests strongly to me that it's because you aren't sure you can actually rejection the application, and therefore would prefer not to deal with it at all.

2. Sometimes, the less powerful feel they are being stepped on by the powerful, and complain about it....the suggestion being that the reason they aren't doing well is because the powerful guy is keeping them down.

3. The more powerful have very specific methods for getting the rest of us to ignore the complainers....because the powerful really are the reason the powerless aren't doing well and, thus, they need everybody else to resent them for it in order to keep it that way.



I've made explicit some additional commentary that I took as implicit in your points 2 and 3. I realize that the "less powerful", as you call them, often feel that the reason their lives suck is because of rich people stepping on them. My point is that this is almost never actually the case. Just because they feel that way doesn't make it true, right?

What I'm taking issue with here, Goat, is the textbook definition of a premise. Of course any response I make is going to seem non-responsive to you. In order for one to be responsive, it would first have to accept all of the assumptions upon which the communicated ideas rely. And I simply don't.

If you want something that is directly responsive to one (a couple, really) of the author's 5 ways, pretty much everything he pointed out could also have been said about the Tea Party and its critics. You don't think its critics -- which, I would guess, the author doesn't include in "the powerful" -- directed inordinate amounts of attention on the movement's most extreme people? You don't think they were eager to point focus on any isolated criminal activities? Or what about gun rights debates? You don't think gun control folks like to focus attention on the nuttiest of gun nuts so as to disparage the entire gun rights movement?

So, really, most of the political tactics he's talking about here are commonplace and have nothing I can see to do with "the powerful" ginning up hatred of "the powerless."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aloha Hoosier
I don't normally share articles from Cracked, because, you know, it's Cracked, but David Wong is a pretty solid writer, regardless of the medium, and he's put out an article explaining how the upper crust successfully turns society against the downtrodden that is worth reading by anyone interested in those things.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-ways-powerful-people-trick-you-into-hating-underdogs/

I only have one comment... the powerful don't have some secret society meetings with the goal of cracking down on the oppressed. If it happens, it's simply a natural course of events. There is not some secret elite plot. The elite are primarily interested in growing their wealth.
 
The article is really just about how to control the message to one's political advantage. It is insightful and well argued, but could just as easily be a guide to how to isolate and demonize the 1 percent.
 
2. Sometimes, the less powerful feel they are being stepped on by the powerful, and complain about it....the suggestion being that the reason they aren't doing well is because the powerful guy is keeping them down.

3. The more powerful have very specific methods for getting the rest of us to ignore the complainers....because the powerful really are the reason the powerless aren't doing well and, thus, they need everybody else to resent them for it in order to keep it that way.



I've made explicit some additional commentary that I took as implicit in your points 2 and 3. I realize that the "less powerful", as you call them, often feel that the reason their lives suck is because of rich people stepping on them. My point is that this is almost never actually the case. Just because they feel that way doesn't make it true, right?

What I'm taking issue with here, Goat, is the textbook definition of a premise. Of course any response I make is going to seem non-responsive to you. In order for one to be responsive, it would first have to accept all of the assumptions upon which the communicated ideas rely. And I simply don't.

If you want something that is directly responsive to one (a couple, really) of the author's 5 ways, pretty much everything he pointed out could also have been said about the Tea Party and its critics. You don't think its critics -- which, I would guess, the author doesn't include in "the powerful" -- directed inordinate amounts of attention on the movement's most extreme people? You don't think they were eager to point focus on any isolated criminal activities? Or what about gun rights debates? You don't think gun control folks like to focus attention on the nuttiest of gun nuts so as to disparage the entire gun rights movement?

So, really, most of the political tactics he's talking about here are commonplace and have nothing I can see to do with "the powerful" ginning up hatred of "the powerless."

I noticed you completely ignored the two examples I highlighted - Gamergate and Tienanmen. Why is that? Do you not think they are good examples of people with less power protesting what might rightfully be called "oppression," or some variation on it? Because if you do not, then I think your criticism holds water. But if you do think they are good examples, then I again state that I think you are absolutely wrong to dismiss the entire article simply because you don't like the application in certain other instances.

The article wasn't about Occupy or inner city blacks or women. It was about all walks of life, and how the people in charge often use the same methods for dismissing the complaints of the people not in charge.
 
Goat - I've skipped over most of your back and forth with CO and simply want to ask how you arrived at the conclusion that I think the oppressed suck? Like you, after you retread the article, I came to the conclusion that there is a difference between the oppressed and the protesters, although there is overlap to be sure. Speaking purely for myself I have a great deal of empathy and concern for the oppressed, and try to conduct my life accordingly. I'm not going to go into detail about my activities here other than to say that they don't involve chanting or burning things.

I am glad you re read the article. I don't think we are too far apart.

By the way - the secret to not hating the oppressed is to get to know them.
 
Goat - I've skipped over most of your back and forth with CO and simply want to ask how you arrived at the conclusion that I think the oppressed suck? Like you, after you retread the article, I came to the conclusion that there is a difference between the oppressed and the protesters, although there is overlap to be sure. Speaking purely for myself I have a great deal of empathy and concern for the oppressed, and try to conduct my life accordingly. I'm not going to go into detail about my activities here other than to say that they don't involve chanting or burning things.

I am glad you re read the article. I don't think we are too far apart.

By the way - the secret to not hating the oppressed is to get to know them.
Doug-

I'm not sure how to avoid it, but to really understand what this article is saying - or, more accurately, to understand what I think is the key lesson - it's important not to get bogged down in who is and isn't "legitimately" impressed. The point of the article isn't that every protester is genuinely oppressed. In fact, one of the points made is specifically that some of them are voicing really dumb complaints. We should all be able to accept that some people who claim oppression have legitimate complaints and some people who claim oppression don't.

But what you did similarly to crazed and COH was respond with a focus on the fact that some protesters don't have valid complaints, i.e., it's their own fault. The key lesson to be taken from the article, I think, is this:

So what? Just because some people don't have a legitimate complaint, that means we should tune them all out? That's precisely one of the strategies for marginalizing protesters put forth in the article, and it's exactly what you did in your original response.

In other words, what I find interesting isn't necessarily that you disagreed with the article, but that you voiced your disagreement by engaging in one of the very rhetorical strategies outlined in the article. To me, that's extremely non-responsive. It's literally responding to the criticism that you can't see the forest for the trees by shouting, "Yeah, but look at the trees!"
 
I noticed you completely ignored the two examples I highlighted - Gamergate and Tienanmen. Why is that? Do you not think they are good examples of people with less power protesting what might rightfully be called "oppression," or some variation on it? Because if you do not, then I think your criticism holds water. But if you do think they are good examples, then I again state that I think you are absolutely wrong to dismiss the entire article simply because you don't like the application in certain other instances.

The article wasn't about Occupy or inner city blacks or women. It was about all walks of life, and how the people in charge often use the same methods for dismissing the complaints of the people not in charge.

Well, I don't know a whole lot about Gamergate. But I would put forth Tienanmen as a fine example of genuine oppression -- the very kind that shouldn't be confused with phony oppression. In fact, the protestors at Tienanmen seemed to only be wanting the very freedom that people here possess....despite so many claiming to be similarly oppressed.

As I said in my initial response, I'm not challenging the existence of real oppression -- including any real instances which happen here. Instead, I'm scoffing at the notion that much of what's called oppression here actually qualifies.

The protestors at Tienanmen were quite right that they were stepped on and held down by the people who held all the power. So, while it's fine to hold it out as an example, it's not fine to analogize it to most anything here on the homefront -- including Occupy (which, yes, the author does refer to).

This discussion kind of reminds of the idea that only a member of the racial majority can be racist, because they hold more power than racial minorities. Well, that's an absurd idea. According to this logic, if I attended Howard University, I could do or say anything I want regarding race...armed with a really convenient shield against the charge of racism. Because, in the Howard community, I'd be in the distinct racial minority. Somehow I don't think that idea would fly in such a situation.

Again, I think the big takeaway for me from the essay is that virtually everything he describes can be attributed to any politically-charged situation. I don't know if, in his calculation (or yours) the Tea Partiers qualify as "powerless" or if its critics qualify as "the powerful." But hasn't pretty much every thing he points to been used against them? The gun rights folks? Christian conservatives? If so, then what exactly do his points have to do with powerful people ginning up hate for powerless protestors?

Sounds to me more like what most any opponents of most any political movement do to discredit those movements.
 
Goat, in my own way i think I was saying exactly what you wanted the reader to get from the argument. I certainly recognize that the troublemakers were a small part of the crowd - but that is who the media focused on and, as a result, the actual message of the protests got lost. (We can argue about the legitimacy of 'hands up/don't shoot' some other time). My point is not that the oppressed suck. Rather it is that those who subvert a legitimate message who suck.
 
Well, I don't know a whole lot about Gamergate. But I would put forth Tienanmen as a fine example of genuine oppression -- the very kind that shouldn't be confused with phony oppression. In fact, the protestors at Tienanmen seemed to only be wanting the very freedom that people here possess....despite so many claiming to be similarly oppressed.

As I said in my initial response, I'm not challenging the existence of real oppression -- including any real instances which happen here. Instead, I'm scoffing at the notion that much of what's called oppression here actually qualifies.

The protestors at Tienanmen were quite right that they were stepped on and held down by the people who held all the power. So, while it's fine to hold it out as an example, it's not fine to analogize it to most anything here on the homefront -- including Occupy (which, yes, the author does refer to).

This discussion kind of reminds of the idea that only a member of the racial majority can be racist, because they hold more power than racial minorities. Well, that's an absurd idea. According to this logic, if I attended Howard University, I could do or say anything I want regarding race...armed with a really convenient shield against the charge of racism. Because, in the Howard community, I'd be in the distinct racial minority. Somehow I don't think that idea would fly in such a situation.

Again, I think the big takeaway for me from the essay is that virtually everything he describes can be attributed to any politically-charged situation. I don't know if, in his calculation (or yours) the Tea Partiers qualify as "powerless" or if its critics qualify as "the powerful." But hasn't pretty much every thing he points to been used against them? The gun rights folks? Christian conservatives? If so, then what exactly do his points have to do with powerful people ginning up hate for powerless protestors?

Sounds to me more like what most any opponents of most any political movement do to discredit those movements.
You make some good points here. I want to be clear, I criticized you because your original response to the article was basically to focus on the fact that some claimed oppression is BS, and use that to dismiss the entire article. I think that was lazy and logically unreasonable. That some protesters are full of it doesn't affect the strength of his argument, especially when one of his points specifically highlights that some protesters are full of it as one of the ways people try to drown out genuine complaint.

These other points of yours, that he's actually highlighting rhetorical strategies that are used by and against the powerful and powerless alike (and presumably, everyone in between) strike me as much stronger. I'll have to ponder that notion some more, but building off your comment about racism, no, I don't think the idea that power affects what is and isn't racism (or any of these other methods from the article) to be patently absurd, although the broad claim that the powerless can't be racist is oversimplistic. Yes, you can be a white racist student at Howard. But that type of racism would be qualitatively different than the racism of a guy who is in charge of hiring at a Fortune 500 company and refuses to hire from certain ethnic groups.

Anyway, this isn't really about racism. The point is, I do recognize that it's perfectly possible for someone who has power to be the target of the same strategies offered in the article. However, there is a qualitative difference between drowning out the voices of the powerful and drowning out the voices of the powerless, because power infects everything we do.

Good stuff. I might have a better response later, after I mull it over some more.
 
Goat, in my own way i think I was saying exactly what you wanted the reader to get from the argument. I certainly recognize that the troublemakers were a small part of the crowd - but that is who the media focused on and, as a result, the actual message of the protests got lost. (We can argue about the legitimacy of 'hands up/don't shoot' some other time). My point is not that the oppressed suck. Rather it is that those who subvert a legitimate message who suck.
I get that. But it was a perfect example of (IIRC) #4 from the article - focusing on the faults of a few protesters as a means for ignoring the rest.
 
If I ignored the rest I would agree with you, but I don't ignore them.
I'm sure you don't. But in the context of this thread, your post made it seem like it was the false oppression that mattered, not the genuine oppression. And you doubled down by blaming the article for this framing, which I disagree with, and explained in great detail why during my back-and-forth with crazed. Point is, there are a lot of ways to respond to the article, but at least three people on this board ultimately responded with, "Yeah, but it's the protesters' own fault," which I found interesting, since that mindset was one of the things the article was trying to explain in the first place.
 
I'm sure you don't. But in the context of this thread, your post made it seem like it was the false oppression that mattered, not the genuine impression. And you doubled down by blaming the article for this framing, which I disagree with, and explained in great detail why during my back-and-forth with crazed. Point is, there are a lot of ways to respond to the article, but at least three people on this board ultimately responded with, "Yeah, but it's the protesters' own fault," which I found interesting, since that mindset was one of the things the article was trying to explain in the first place.

Everything is relative. Oppression is relative. Have you read Why Men Rebel by Gurr?
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT