Look, I already said you won. You’re right, I’m wrong. You’re good, I’m bad. No contest.
You give me too much credit. Or not enough. w/e
I disagree. Psychological abuse, poverty, poor health, environmental hazards, a lack of education, the belief in things that don’t exist, and so on, are all social problems that don’t instrinsically involve physical aggression. Neither does it inherently follow from considering such things to be social problems that one advocates aggression or a coercive political policy to address them.
You’re leading up to a non-sequitor here and only reinforcing my point about conflating “right and wrong” in general with rights-concepts. I can believe in plenty of things about addressing peoples “needs” without advocating a formal doctrine of “positive rights” in which coercion is condoned. I could concievably believe that “it’s a good thing to take care of the poor” without advocating some sort of welfare state or telling people to become robin hoods.
As for ways to “oppress” you without using physical aggression: plenty. I’m not sure what’s so hard to understand about “I.E. make your life shitty”. Clearly, physically aggressing against people isn’t the only way to make their lives shitty. For a basic and obvious example of how a person’s life can be shitty without anyone aggressing against them, a starving person’s life is shitty, with or without aggression. An ill person without medical attention’s life is shitty, with or without aggression.
And there are things that people can do to make other people’s lives worse off in such ways - if a group of people are disallowed access to goods and services that they are willing to pay for, this makes them worse off (which is part of why separatism and institutional discrimination is bad on consequentialist grounds, in that people’s lives are made worse off by them). This doesn’t mean that I have to advocate coercing people to give them stuff - I can coherantly have “increased benefits for the masses” as a goal without contradicting libertarianism. It’s called “mutual aid”, a classic concept in the history of anarchism that contemporary libertarians would benefit from emphasizing, rather than knee-jerkedly conflating benificience with coercion.
That’s not a social woe.
Not being able to be medically treated is not a shitty condition to be in? [:O]
That is not a social woe.
What is the difference between “‘oppression’” and oppression? As those examples don’t constitute oppression, oppression can only occure at the unjust hands of an authority of some sorts, unless you are saying god or nature is oppressing man by reuiring him to eat or “making” him ill, oppression just doesn’t fit.
Simply stating your premise isn’t an argument. Why isn’t a society in which large swaths of people do not have medical treatment (or proper medical treatment) not a social woe? That claim makes no sense.
They do constitute oppression once we put them into an interpersonal context. You’re correct that the mere fact that someone is starving isn’t oppression, it’s a negative condition. However, if we put it in an interpersonal context in which the starving person has some money that they are willing to use to buy food, but all of the buisinesses that they try to patronize don’t allow them to buy food simply because of the color of their skin, that is oppression. Is it a formal rights violation? No. But it is oppression in the sense that one is explicitly contributing to someone else’s negative condition.
Another example might be homelessness. The mere fact that someone doesn’t have a home isn’t oppression, it’s a negative condition. However, if this person has the means necessary to buy or rent a home and every single homeowner in the community disallows them from buying or renting a home (possibly in conjunction with an institutional law that effectively makes it illegal to sell a home to people of a certain group) simply because of the color of their skin, that is oppression in the sense that one is explicitly contributing to someone else’s homelessness, making them worse off.
Is it a social woe or not? I corrected you, and pointed out it was not. You shifted the goal posts to being “a shitty condition”. Do you maintain that being in “a shitty condition” is synonymous with a social woe or not?
So it is only a social woe if it affects a lot of people? If only one person does not have medical treatment is that a social woe, or do we need “large swaths” of people to make it a social woe? I’m coming at this collectivist statement as an individualist. Please help me understand.
C’mon now. You’re moving the goal:
You can’t do any of those without aggression. Sure, they can happen, but you can’t make it happen. I asked how you can oppress me and how you can make my life shitty without aggression (not you personally [:)]). You’ve given me a list of ways nature can make my life shitty. I agree life can be shitty. I disagree that one person can oppress another, or make another’s life shittier, without resorting to aggression.
Thats not an explicit contribution to a negative condition, its total non-contribution, the community has in no way made his life any worse. So its simply not oppression. Such behaviour seems to be no worse than protesting and ostracism, comparable to protesters scaring off/ blocking customers from a business, thus negatively contributing (which actually seems worse) Or businesses refusing to serve an admitted racist, sexist,… etc. The tactics are in the same line.
It certainly may be a negative condition not to have a home, but owning a home simply isn’t a right.
I have the means to fornicate, if every single female (or male for that matter) rejects me, because, say, they made a vow to god, or just dislike French boys, I’m just out of luck, I’m not oppressed. But like the homeless situation, there simply isn’t anything unjust transpiring. Further I really don’t see where the line is you are drawing, if the person is simply to poor to rent or buy a home, thus in the exact same situation as the homeless out-of-towner, is he not just as “oppressed”? Or is he just out of luck?
“The community” doesn’t do anything. But the specific individual that refuses to sell food to them is explicitly contributing to making their life worse. I see this as undeniable. It is oppression to refuse to sell products to people who’s very survival depends on them simply because those people belong to a particular racial identity group.
I never claimed that owning a home is a right. Again, you people, stop conflating “right and wrong” with only political “rights”.
Wow. This is a really weak attempt on your part to trip me up. I already clarified this in the above posts. It is a social woe - a “shitty condition” is a social woe. And it is “oppression” if it is contributed to by other’s decisions. Nice try, but no cigar.
Non-sequitor and red herring.
You’re nitpicking about my use of the term “large swaths”, which is an unessential part of my point. It’s a social woe regaurdless of scale, but the severity of the social woe is certain higher if it is more prevailent.
well, at least you confirmed that people don’t have a right to not be oppresed, unless its oppression by violence,( and not mere ‘cognitive error’)
cognitive error. the sins of the mind! apparently people that make mistakes or are mistaken, and whose mistakes do not cause rights violations are bad people. insightful. </sarcasm tag>
I’m not shifting the goal, I inadequately explained myself within the first few sentences. I then went on to more concretely clarify what I meant. You’re simply wrong about aggression. I don’t have to use aggression to make a decision that makes you worse off. You’ve created a strawman about nature making life shitty by nitpicking about the beginning of my post. I already clarified this: it’s the decision to not sell the homeless person a home or to sell the starving person food because they belong to identity group X that is oppressive (and yes, this is both non-aggressive and has the effect of exaserbating someone’s suffering), not the fact that they are homeless or starving in and of itself. So I’m not going to play into this attempt at characterizing my position to be some sort of metaphysical “problem of evil”.
You, sir, are an asshole.
forgive me my cognitive errors.
This is a severe misuse of the term oppression, individuals have no obligation to serve another in any manner. Oppression only occurs when ones rights are being violated (i.e. being treated unjustly). It may be uneconomic, “mean” and “wrong,” but it isn’t oppression. And if refusal to sell for reason X (race in this case) is oppression, then refusal to sell for reasons Y, Z, … also must be oppression. So is it oppression not to sell for less than the asking price? Or to refuse to sell because of ones philosophical outlook, etc…
Pardon me, where have I done such thing? To be oppressed is to have your rights violated, since owning a home isn’t a right, being denied a home isn’t oppression. I never once implied that it was “right” or “wrong” to deny one a home. And even by your own argument above, in this case it still isn’t, as your very survival doesn’t depend on having a home.
Suppose that two adjacent shops sell food. One will sell a starving person food. The other will not. The starving person ends up eating. In the alternate case, both will not sell and the person starves. Is refusal to sell being oppression dependent upon refusal to sell being a marginal cause of starvation or does the mere effort count as oppression?
And, once again, I’m not talking about rights and legal obligations.
Once again, I do not accept the premise that formal rights violations are the only way to oppress people.
It’s oppression to make a decison (even a “negative” decision) that causes or exaserbates another’s suffering, particularly with the full knowledge that it will do so, plain and simple.
Actually you’re reinforcing my claim that you people are tending to define “right and wrong” strictly in terms of questions about aggression and political rights. Just because someone’s negative rights are not formally violated does not mean that they are not oppressed. As for survival, I never claimed that survival is the only criteria (that would be too Randian for my taste).