(no subject)

In real_philosophy lately there has been a lot of give-and-take on a priori, a posteriori, synthetic, and analytic statements. In college I was fascinated enough by philosophy of language to take a course on the subject.

However, I can't muster any excitement for it now. Besides, the monistic perspective makes that whole argument seem like just a bunch of wanking. Without an underlying assumption of dualism the distinction between a priori and a posteriori is weak.

And also, didn't Quine put all of that to rest anyway?

Oppression of vs. oppression by

My sound-bite understanding of oppression is that you have a class of people somehow distinguished as "different from the norm" in some clear way, who have in general less access to social, economic, and political institutions and resources (IOW they are exploited), and who have in general a greater likelihood of being abused in some way (IOW they are discriminated against).

The contentious part of talking about oppression is not describing the effects of oppression on those who are oppressed (though there are some who will debate this for any given oppressed class), it is talking about who is doing the oppression. This gets contentious because it is a complex question that implicates every person in society in some way.

Basically, you have those who cause the oppression through their deliberate acts of abuse and exploitation, along with those who perpetuate it by encoding it into ideologies and institutions. Then you have "unwitting participants": those who follow oppression-contributing ideologies without questioning them, and those who take advantage of privilege without realizing it.

Among the many effects of oppression on the oppressed class, there are two in specific that I want to address at this point. The first is that someone who is oppressed does not have the liberty of moving away from the oppression; that is, it is a part of her or his economic, social, and political reality that colors every interaction. Secondly, oppression carries an emotional odor that lingers always, even when someone is in so-called "safe space." Oppression is traumatic, and trauma installs "emotional triggers" in the brain that can be tripped intentionally or unintentionally.

Typically, people object to the assertion that they participate in oppression because this is not the way they experience certain things. For one thing, they have the privilege of overlooking the oppression because it does not affect them. Or, they might see the effects of abuse and exploitation on people close to them and either not see the pattern, or approve because of ideology.

Another factor at work here is entitlement: people who are not oppressed perceive the right to take advantage of any social, economic, or political opportunity available to them without any thought for what went into creating that opportunity -- or again, they might see it but approve for ideological reasons. A man for example might accept a job entirely unaware of the woman who was not given it because of her gender; or he might know of her rejection but approve because he feels she belongs "in the home" anyway. Either way, the effect on her (economically and emotionally) is the same, but from his perspective in either case there are different thoughts to correspond with the same entitlement and privilege.

A while ago I explored the idea that the conscious mind exists in part to create a filter that allows us to pretend that certain things don't exist -- like the privilege that comes with not being oppressed. Much of the "oppression code" is communicated non-verbally, which allows abusers to play innocent because they never "told" their victim what to think or how to react -- or they may even have said something that plainly contradicts the underlying message of abuse ("I'm doing this because I love you," and similar BS).

So there are many forces making it difficult to see what one is gaining from oppression. But another contributing factor I mentioned Tuesday, in describing the traumatic effect of oppression.

Many ideologies look favorably upon certain kinds of oppression. It is not uncommon for abusers to cite these as justification for their abuse. Ideology thus becomes the "soundtrack" for oppression and becomes associated with the effects of oppression trauma. Thus if someone who has been abused hears or reads the ideology, the person citing it appears to be a conspirator in the abuse, even if he or she is not. From the perspective of the oppressed this distinction does not matter, because the person citing a popular ideology obtains benefits therefrom which were acquired in part at the expense of the oppressed.

Note that it is not my intention to let anyone off the hook -- especially if they are directly abusive, but also if they look favorably upon oppression-justifying ideology. Anyone who knowingly commits a wrong is answerable for that wrong, period.

But what I'm wondering is, is everyone who accepts benefits from someone else's oppression an "oppressor"? Are they (we) the ones who oppression is by? In some cases there is clearly "oppression by," but there are also cases where I think it is too unclear to speak of "oppression by."

"Political correctness" is an attempt to mitigate or reduce the level of triggering in oppressed people caused by certain use of language. As such it is an imperfect mechanism, but most of the objection to "political correctness" comes from those who do not experience certain oppressions and who feel therefore set upon to change their language and thus to be always conscious of the oppression. Any restriction caused by PC is miniscule compared to the restrictions of oppression itself, but this point is lost on those with privilege who are accustomed to overlooking the oppression itself.

A similar point can be made about hate crimes laws, which are also aimed at targeting crimes that are intended to trigger fear and despair throughout an oppressed community. Again this is not a perfect mechanism, but I think a good case can be made that it is in the interest of a democracy to do what can be done towards a political "level playing field." As with PC, they are mostly criticized for hampering to one's ability to ignore oppression.

Other entries leading up to this can be found here and here.

(no subject)

Alright, the "liberal" wing of the Supreme Court is starting to really hack me off. The medical marijuana ruling was annoying enough, but now there's this:

A divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses against their will for private development in a decision anxiously awaited in communities where economic growth often is at war with individual property rights.

The 5-4 ruling — assailed by dissenting Justice Sandra Day O'Connor as handing "disproportionate influence and power" to the well-heeled in America — was a defeat for Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They had argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.

As a result, cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue.

from Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes

The original goal of "eminent domain" was to allow the government to make way for public infrastructure, and even that was of questionable acceptability. The Supreme Court has, however, opened the door for developers across the country to get in bed with city counselors, promise them higher tax revenue in return for using residential land commercially -- building malls, resorts, casinos, you name it -- if only the city council will force the people already there out of their homes. Those people will now have ultimately no legal recourse.

This is the essence of cronyism: the wealthy and privileged taking laws originally designed to protect the public, and collaborating with cronies in government to twist them so that the public is actually harmed in the name of helping them.