I'm no professional political operative, but if someone at the major caucus of the Australian Labour Party suggested somehow stealth buying advertisement time or shit like that for their political adverseries, they'd probably be ejected from the party as a spy. Not slapped on the back by the people in charge and told that its a winning plan with no drawbacks.
Funny Events of the "Woke" world
- Thread starter CriticalGaming
- Start date
Brought to you by the literally stupidest people in politics.
While we're talking about supreme court rulings, let's not forget the white house weighed in on stripping away Miranda rights in favor of... stripping away Miranda rights.
I'm not against the courts refusing to let people sue individual police officers for failing to uphold the correct process: I just expect that evidence against the suspect through breaches of process are inadmissable in court.
At some point individual officers have to be accountable to the public, otherwise they'll keep abusing people's rights. Even if evidence becomes inadmissible in court, an entire court case could be built around that evidence and thus, if the officers get no pushback, they can just harass people.
So... you don't think that Asian have a stereotype of being mathematical gifted and hard working?
Which, I might add, does not mean that they also can't be oppressed in other ways. Oppression and Privilege dont cancel each other out
The stereotype exists, yes.
So for you, stereotyping = oppression. Or, being good at maths means privilege.
...y'know, I could spend some time pointing out how silly this is when actual oppression exists (in Asia, and elsewhere), or how insane it is to label people as "oppressors" because they're good at math, but if you're this far down the rabbit hole, why bother?
Here is what a boss said many times to me
'I hire Asian people because they work harder than white people.'
So, yes. Asian people were hired over white, Aborginal, Islanders and Africans.
Note, she is a white person. Also she did not want to pay them much so they were given the lowest level pay. Also, also she said this as late as 2020, I no longer work there so I can't say she says this anymore
One stereotype gained Asians a job over other people. Another stereotype made them to not progress up the ladder.
This is what you call nuance. They are BOTH oppressed and privileged at the same time. AGAIN its not an on/off switch nor does one cancel out the other.
Also, White people in general have privileges but not all white people get 'white privilege' becuase if their specific circumstance. Just because they might have white privilege, does not mean they dont have economic or social disadvantages
Nor does the people who get the priviledge intentionally cuase other people to be disadvantaged.
Lastly, just because someone says something is oppressive does not mean it's used at the level as other versions of oppression. Eg. An Asian person getting a job because of a stereotype is not the same level of oppression as the US immigration policy. That's not as oppressive as what Russia is doing to the Ukraine or what China and Myammar is doing to Muslim. Just because China does something bad, does not mean we can't talk about, say, Elon not wanting to wipe racist messages off his warehouse walls
Again, privilege and oppression dont cancel each other out. They are not on/off switches. You personally will have privileges and disadvantages.
Maybe dont get your panties in a twist because just because someone uses the word privileged?
Yes, but that doesn't make the Asian person hired an "oppressor," does it?
And you realize that you could apply that paradigm to anyone, anywhere, at any point.
Different people have different lots in life, an "oppressed"/"oppressor" paradigm is hardly the best way to look at it.
Which touches on my thoughts - if your level of "oppression" extends from stuff like the Rohinga and Ughyrs to people not getting a job, then it's a useless term.
It also removes any nuance. I can dislike what the Chinese and Russian governments do, I don't think that makes every Russian or Han Chinese an "oppressor." I think ISIS is a terrible group, that doesn't make every Muslim an "oppressor." Israel's treatment of Palestinians is abhorent, doesn't mean I think all Jews are "oppressors." But if you're going to sort anyone into oppressed/oppressor, then, well, you're entitled to view the world that way, doesn't mean I think it's an appealing viewpoint, or even the correct one - removes nuance, judges people based on inherent traits, etc.
I've nothing against people using the world priviledged. FFS, I am priviledged. I'm typing on a computer in one of the richest, most peaceful countries in the world, enjoyed a stable life, and am financially secure. I absolutely AM priviledged. I just don't believe that any of that makes me an oppressor ipso facto, nor do I believe people who have it even better than me are oppressors ipso facto, or people below me are oppressed.
If your paradigm of seeing the world is oppressed/oppressor, and doing so based on inherent traits, then, well, now you know why I'm not a fond of wokeism. And if your philosophy allows people to be both at the same time, and designated as such, then yikes.
Nuance... or Intersectionalism.
This has always been an issue with the term 'white privilege' and a lot of it is because the person who originally coined the term (at least insofar as academia is concerned) didn't exactly apply much rigor in determining which privileges examined were a result of race or of the author's relatively high socio-economic status. The whole concept of shifting the narrative from "who's missing out" to "who's getting more" (which was the aim) certainly took hold but whether that helped is anyone's guess.
Du Bois wasn't rigorous enough? Okay... sure
There has definitely been a fight over class/race reductionism that has gone on for a long time, if that's what you mean
EDIT: I should add that I point out a bunch of different things you need to add, like social and economic class
Let's take your premise as truthful. Feminism was originally only about rich white women but change once they realised that they should expand their horizons, fighting for a variety of rights, and today including funding for DV centre for men. Or Civil Rights went from just talking about treatment of African Americans and tried to include everyone. Even if Du Bois got it wrong, doesnt mean it cant learn a thing a two over the last century
They can be both at the same time. It's not an on/off switch. These people received benefits in one way and get oppressed in another. They got the job over other candidates (advantaged) but weren't allowed to rise in rank (disadvantaged). Think of a rich African America. Economically, he has advantages. But he is still more likely to be pulled over by the police. TWO things at one time. He might have enough money to pay off the police but its not going to stop him from being pulled over
Yes very much so. That's the point
Thats... like the point of look at oppression - looking at how people lots in life and seeing what effects have which results
Jesus. I am comparing not getting a job as not as oppressive as being put into concentrate camps or being murdered. Not getting a job is like a 2/10 level of oppression. What's happening to the Ughyrs might 9/10
Edit: Here is another example. White men in Applachian mountains have way more privilege than the average African. I would not called them prilivilege compared to a NY financier. They would even be as priviliedged as the average African American
Seriously, dude. WTAF. It's not an on/off switch. It's a dial.
Knowing what level of oppression is really important because it leads to vastly different ways to deal with the situation. For example, my boss just needs a talking to about treating people fairly. China needs sanctions and other such punishment.
Eg. Slavery in the US you could say was an 8/10 oppression. Jim Crowe a 6/10. Now maybe a 2/10 out of ten. All of it is oppression. Only one needs a civil war as a response
It's NOT an on/off switch
No. You're on/off switch approach removes nuance. I'm literally adding multiple factors into a person's background to give a rich understanding of people
FUCK ME DEAD. Sorry, I didnt to add the word government. I thought would have been implied, but I guess I have spell everything out for you. Side note: When you were taught about the Australians doing the Stolen and Lost Generation, did you think you did it?
Show me, anywhere in my 10 years here on this website I have ever made any claims you are stating here. In fact, include any academic who has talked about privilege. They PAINSTACKINGLY point out all these things. You are repeating Intersectional talking points they use to provide nuance as evidence they dont have nuance. This is bonkers
Well this is just showing me you havent read what I said[/quote]You arent doing anything. You arent hurting anyone intentionally. The SYSTEM is doing it. Automatically.
Secondly, you are privileged. ALSO, you are NOT as privileged as Cliver Palmer, ScoMo, Murdoch or Packer. Their economic background gives them more privileges that you. You are both privileged and not privileged at the same time for different reasons
What? Like, if I saw that African Americans, whose inherent trait was being used to oppress them into slavery... I can't point this out because that's too woke?
I can't say that kids in the Ukraine are worse off than those in Australia because that's an inherent trait?
Do you not know what oppression is?
Also, it's becoming incredibly clear that you just don't like the word oppression
Last edited:
To clarify, Miranda rights are completely unaffected by this ruling. You still have to be read your rights, and a confession acquired without stating the right to remain silent is inadmissible in court. This case was whether a specific individual police officer can be sued for not reading the Miranda rights at the time of arrest.
I think police officers should be accountable. I am just not sure that suing them as individuals is the best way to do it.
In particular, the aim for me is to see that the police as an institution are competent and serve the public faithfully and honestly. If the police are institutionally decent, they should see to it themselves that their agents are decent. Shifting accountability to individual officers does not motivate institutional improvements the same way because it is not the institution being held to account. This is in concept the same idea as not accepting the excuse of "bad apples" every time people want to fob off wider criticism of the police for misconduct of their officers.
Receiving benefits/advantages does not make you an oppressor. Or if it does, then the term is worthless.
But that's not the point you're making, nor the original quote.
That isn't the point of oppression, you're applying oppression to a completely separate concept, and/or redefining oppression so that everyone, everywhere, is oppressed in some manner by any kind of disadvvantage.
Not getting a job doesn't even belong on the same spectrum.
Yes, but are the Appalachians 'oppressing" anyone? Because you've switched from oppression to privilige.
I agree that the average Appalachian is better off than the average African, I'm not sure how that means the Appalachian is oppressing the African.
I disagree that it's either.
And the person who gets the job? Are they an oppressor? Because that's the original point being made.
Again, you're sidelining.
Yes, slavery would count as oppression, Jim Crowe would count as oppression, you could call mass incarceration and numerous other things oppression, that wasn't the original point of the tweet.
You're subscribing to an ideology that labels people as oppressors, oppressed, or both. You're the one who's removing nuance.
Again, you're evading the question.
Does every citizen in a country share identical levels of culpability for the wrongdoings of their government or not? Because in your paradigm, the answer is yes.
I never said you made the claims, I used them as examples, you nitwit.
It's the same thing over and over - evade, evade, evade.
What? You're the one who's using intersectional talking points.
You realize that intersectionality removes nuance, right? If your way of seeing the world is by sorting everyone into categories (often through inherent traits), that's less individualistic, not more so.
You've spent an entire thread evading or misrepresenting what I've said, so you're in no position to whine.
Which is another evasion. The paradigm wasn't about systems, it was about individuals.
Also, saying "the system" is a copout, at least in your boss analogy.
And are they oppressors?
I've already defined wokeism as best I can, pointing out history isn't wokeism.
I've honestly lost count the number of times you've evaded points.
It's debatable whether nationality is an inherent trait, but yes, the average Ukrainian is less fortunate than the average Australian, even before Russia's invasion. There's nothing "woke" about that fact.
But by the paradigm you've embraced, that's all boiled down to oppressed/oppressor, since everyone in both countries would either be one of these things, or somehow, both.
It's clear that you don't, since by your definition, everyone is oppressed.
Oh no, I'm fine with the word oppression. Oppression is very real.
But if your definition of oppression is everything and anything, then it's meaningless.
If we take oppression to mean unfair or unjust treatment of people over a sustained period of time, then why does it not apply? The fact that institutionalised societal disadvantagement may exist in much milder forms than slavery and voting disenfranchisement doesn't mean it isn't long-term unfair and unjust treatment.
If the sum of your argument is merely to protest semantics becuase you think a term is a bit harsh (especially when that word has been widely used in that context for many years), I'd suggest you're not arguing something interesting and important.
The second issue is this idea of "oppressor". You are right, that receiving benefits does not necessarily make one an "oppressor" (not least because it would be the person who is deciding the allocation of resources that would be the oppressor, not a recipient of unfair gains.) But more importantly, the "oppressor" is not usually personalised in this situation, the oppressor is better seen as the general system or society, where many of its beneficiaries have neither intent nor even awareness of their advantages.
You cannot correct for the police as an institution if you can't affect police as individuals. What, should George Floyd's family have settled for a payout from the city coffers instead of holding Chauvin accountable?
Yes, and now police are free to intimidate confessions out of people. They may not hold up in court, but people can just be hauled to court on police whim with no redress.
Chauvin was brought to criminal trial and found guilty of manslaughter: given this, it cannot be usefully argued that he was not held accountable.