comments on Maurer's comments on Chabot's comments...
Steven Maurer
> >> It doesn't take being
> >> a minority to be oppressed, it takes being not outspoken...which can lead
> >> to isolation, you know.
>
> > IN WHICH CASE, THEY ARE -- *NOT OPPRESSED*.
> > Oppress (\e-pre\~s') tr.v -pressed, -press.ing, -press.es. 1. To
> > subjugate or persecute by unjust or tyrannical use of force or
> > authority. ......
> >
> > *Convincing* someone, therefore, is NOT oppression -- no matter
> > how much you disagree with the person doing the convincing.
>
> Sorry, Steve. Just because people learn to accept oppressive de facto rules
> as "law" doesn't mean it's not oppression. If all people learn from day one
> is the stereotypical way, the only way, the correct way (be it from parents,
> schools, clergy (!), or community), they are limited to certain ways of
> thinking. Other ways are simply considered wrong outright without
> investigation. Anyone who chooses to be different is an outcast (or worse,
> remember witch trials?). Oppression doesn't necessarily imply a deliberate
> "oppressor" saying "Yes, I will make sure that these rules stay this way for
> my benefit." Society can become a de facto oppressor.
And if you talk to any Soviet citizen, you will find that that
is their opinion of us *poor* capatilists. Capatalism is *oppressive*,
but we don't know it because we were brainwashed from day one that it
is the only way to live. Thus, the Soviet Union is actually trying
to *free* us from our decadant lifestyle..... by any means possible.
(Consider the "heroism" of those soldiers in Afghanistan, who are risking
their lives to free the natives from their *oppressive* culture,
traditions, and government).
Of course the fallacy of this (and your) argument is that most
*every* social custom is accepted as de facto correct behavior. You
cannot just start labeling people "oppressed", because you don't like
a particular style of living, and then claim that "they do it only
because they don't know any better". I could just as easily say "YOU
behave they way you do, because YOU don't know any better", and be just
as right (and wrong) as you are. (Don't you feel *sorry* for all the
children from other countries *forced* to learn *foreign*, and *hard
to understand* languages?? What oppression!! We must *free* them
immediately!!).
The other fallicy of your argument is that it is based on the myth
that "Other ways are simply considered wrong outright without
investigation." Bullpucky. People constantly check their mode
of behavior, and change those modes of behavior, depending upon new
knowledge and/or environment. We absorb and invent other customs
continuously and unconsciously -- which should be obvious, since
otherwise humans would still be hunter-gatherers on the open savannah.
If our *old* customs need changing, it is not because they are
oppressive, but simply because they are outdated.
> > Snow Jobs do little to patch over the understanding
> > that real suffering is happening.
>
> Methinks the snow job is the effort to show that, because no one "feels"
> oppressed, because they might actually have learned to like it the way it
> is, that no people are actually victims of this oppression. I'm sure a lot
> of people accept the way things are in the Soviet Union, and don't know any
> other way. Does that mean they're not oppressed?
Yup. You got it. Very few soviet citizens are oppressed: only
the disidents are. Of course the way we judge governments nowadays
is how they treat their opposition parties, however it wasn't all that
long ago when we didn't have such exacting standards. As most Soviet
Citizens can tell you (even the ones who don't like the government)
"You can live." -- meaning if you ignore the government, it'll ignore
you. Try asking an El Salvador peasant, who really doesn't give a
flying fuck about politics, the same question..... and you might
begin to understand what real oppression is.
> Perhaps, because, as you yourself have shown with your example,
> the stereotypes exist and are pervasive. A major difference between
> stereotypes of minorities and stereotypes of "majorities". Minority
> stereotypes involve lies and falsehoods told about people to spread
> hatred; some minorities actually adhered to the stereotypes, believing
> that 1) they were supposed to, and 2) that "majorities" would be more
> accepting of them if they behaved according to expectations. Majority
> stereotypes involve behaviors that we have seen more than our share
> of examples of; while *some* minorities actually adhered to their
> stereotypes for the reasons I've described, the funny thing is that
> so many "majorities" do the same thing for the same reasons.
A classic example of reverse bigotry.
"Minority stereotypes": "involve lies and falsehoods told
about people to spread hatred;"
"Majority stereotypes": "involve behaviors that we have seen
more than our share of examples of"
...... No doubt it is the "Majority" who is doing the
telling of the "lies and falsehoods.. to spread hatred".
I just wonder *who* determines if a stereotype is a "Minority" one
or a "Majority" one. We all know, of course, that saying "All
Blacks are are interested in is playing Basketball" is a lie and
falsehood, but of course saying "All Men are insensitive assholes"
involve behaviors that we have seen more than our share of examples
of. Too bad my dictionary doesn't agree (but then again, no doubt
the *Majority* wrote it). It says:
Stereotype (ste\~r'e\--\e-ti\ip) n. 1. A conventional, formulaic,
and usually oversimplified or incorrect conception, opinion,
or belief.
...
Steven Maurer