The Student Room Group

This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Why are debates about systems of oppression still dominated by white males?

Scroll to see replies

Evidently not comparable, don't be absurd. The correct treatment for a tumour has nothing to do with the patients personal experience.
If you want to try and compare it to medicine, it's the suggestion that the patient should be able to say "no, this medication isn't relieving my symptoms, can we try something different" and that's also perfectly sensible.
Original post by AngeryPenguin
0. It is just a straw man that the far-right uses because they get offended when someone challenges their world view.


I’m actually on the left. You’re such a hypocrite and your posts are ludicrous. Being racist and sexist doesn’t solve the problems of racism and sexism. You’re making things worse.
Original post by IH8Studying
exactly. straight white males are the least oppressed but have the most to say about oppression. usually the straight while males on TSR are always the ones to deny racism. and call everyone snowflakes.

If you're afraid of dogs, then you're likely to think that any dog is a threat while most aren't.
Therefore, we could very well deliver an arguement, that people who have experienced oppresion are the worst candidates to do anything about it, because they might see oppression even when there is none.
Therefore, in their eyes, people who have not experienced oppresion, deny the existence of oppresion, even when actually those people are not denying oppression, but only claim that there isn't any oppresion when there isn't one.
Original post by AngeryPenguin
0. It is just a straw man that the far-right uses because they get offended when someone challenges their world view.

The left does exactly the same. Straw-man arguments and paranoid rhetorics are used by both sides. Only if you're on one side, then by definition of paranoics, you can't see that you're paranoic.
Original post by Stiff Little Fingers
Evidently not comparable, don't be absurd. The correct treatment for a tumour has nothing to do with the patients personal experience.
If you want to try and compare it to medicine, it's the suggestion that the patient should be able to say "no, this medication isn't relieving my symptoms, can we try something different" and that's also perfectly sensible.

The point is that you don't need to experience something to be qualified in dealing with it.
Also, a brain tumor would actually decrese the surgeons ability to perform surgeries. And the same there is with a person who has been hurt several times by the same thing, is going to be oversensitive about it, and do excessive defensive reactions. Therefore, such person might be less qualified to counter the oppression, than a person who has not experienced it. Same as a surgeon that has suffered from a brain tumor is less qualified to perform brain surgeries, than a person who has not suffered from such illness.
A person who has experienced some persecution can actually react like a person who's pain has been treated with opioids.
A person who has experienced oppresion, can perceive a healthy signs of working meritocracy, as an effect of oppresion against the group the person belongs to. Same, a person who has been treated with opioids, can claim he or she needs opioids, even though the actual source of pain has been removed, and the person only wants more opioids because either have is paranoid about the pain, or has been addicted to opioids.
Well no, the patient would have every right to tell the doctor that their experience of the medication and it's help or lack thereof trumps the doctors knowledge of it as a pharmaceutical, which would actually be the parallel.


If the person is that well educated I can straight away guarantee they wouldn't agree with the nonsense you've spouted, so you can drop that attempt at a gotcha. Sociologists work as I've described, by listening to and learning from the group they're studying, not shoehorning in their own opinion.


Original post by PTMalewski
The point is that you don't need to experience something to be qualified in dealing with it.
Also, a brain tumor would actually decrese the surgeons ability to perform surgeries. And the same there is with a person who has been hurt several times by the same thing, is going to be oversensitive about it, and do excessive defensive reactions. Therefore, such person might be less qualified to counter the oppression, than a person who has not experienced it. Same as a surgeon that has suffered from a brain tumor is less qualified to perform brain surgeries, than a person who has not suffered from such illness.
A person who has experienced some persecution can actually react like a person who's pain has been treated with opioids.
A person who has experienced oppresion, can perceive a healthy signs of working meritocracy, as an effect of oppresion against the group the person belongs to. Same, a person who has been treated with opioids, can claim he or she needs opioids, even though the actual source of pain has been removed, and the person only wants more opioids because either have is paranoid about the pain, or has been addicted to opioids.


The point is complete nonsense. When it comes to what would help a person's lived experience, you do actually have to have lived that experience to know what would help it.
Reply 26
Avatar for mgi
mgi
20
Original post by londonmyst
If he is a committed intersectional feminist with personal experiences of being a disabled asylum seeker, who has fled racial and religious persecution plus defines as working class and will be the first in his family to graduate if he decides to study at uni- who are you to discriminate against him? :biggrin:

Yes. I think Donald Trump should be allowed to represent the human rights of Mexican people. Anyone can represent anyone and anything as long as they say that they are fair, understand life and people!
You need to be educated to become a doctor for a reason, your comparison of the average white dude pretending to know anything about oppression to a highly educated and trained professional demonstrates exactly the attitude you’re trying to argue against
(edited 4 years ago)
Original post by Stiff Little Fingers
you do actually have to have lived that experience to know what would help it.


The nonsense is all yours. Are all drug or mental health counsellors ex-addicts? Are hostage negotiators ex-kidnappers or kidnap victims themselves? Does a lifeguard have to be a near-drowning victim? Must a government leader have been in every single situation his or her fellow citizens have faced? Can a road designer not be a blind train and bus user?
Reply 29
Avatar for Wōden
Wōden
15
Original post by Stiff Little Fingers
The point is complete nonsense. When it comes to what would help a person's lived experience, you do actually have to have lived that experience to know what would help it.


Well why don't you tell that to the people who are not straight white men (like the woman in the video), but will blithely dismiss anything a straight white man has to say on a given issue, based on seemingly little more than an implicit assumption that a straight white male couldn't possibly have lived the same or similar experiences.
The person in this video just seem unhappy and took it out on the other person at the meeting. She most likely target this person because he was there she mostly turn on someone else later.
Reply 31
Avatar for mgi
mgi
20
Original post by josh75
How are you going to report my post, you are a known troll you dont believe anything your saying. Im going to report all your post now. And finnally the only meaningful system of oppression is money, whether you are rich or poor. Everything else is demonstrably meaningless.


This comment about oppression is utterly false. World war 2 was not about money or religion!
Original post by mgi
This comment about oppression is utterly false. World war 2 was not about money or religion!

What you say makes no sense no one is talking about world war 2
Reply 33
Avatar for mgi
mgi
20
Original post by josh75
What you say makes no sense no one is talking about world war 2


No. You shoild have read the ridiculous previous general sweeping comment about the only method of oppression concerns money. The point i was making is that there are methods of oppressing people/ destroying their lives that clearly have nothing to do with money! Like certain wars, racial hatred etc. It would be good if you bothered to read the posts properly to get the correct context before you make your uninformed remarks!
Original post by mgi
No. You shoild have read the ridiculous previous general sweeping comment about the only method of oppression concerns money. The point i was making is that there are methods of oppressing people/ destroying their lives that clearly have nothing to do with money! Like certain wars, racial hatred etc. It would be good if you bothered to read the posts properly to get the correct context before you make your uninformed remarks!

No you should read. No one is talking about world war 2, we are talking about "oppression" in modern western nations specifically; opression done in ww2 by the nazi's has no bearing on western Europe today. Use your common sense for god sake, obviously when I say oppression is "x y or z" I am not talking in universal absolutes across time and space. I think that is the dumbest thing ive heard all week.
Reply 35
Avatar for mgi
mgi
20
Original post by josh75
No you should read. No one is talking about world war 2, we are talking about "oppression" in modern western nations specifically; opression done in ww2 by the nazi's has no bearing on western Europe today. Use your common sense for god sake, obviously when I say oppression is "x y or z" I am not talking in universal absolutes across time and space. I think that is the dumbest thing ive heard all week.

Your first post was not at all clear. Neither you nor the other post saud anything about Western Europe nowadays. He in fact made a sweeping statement about the roots of "oppression "which did not make any sense and was false. You need to be clear and specific in your opinions. And re read the post that I was referring to and dont bother with the insults, it just further weakens your flawed arguments.
Original post by mgi
Your first post was not at all clear. Neither you nor the other post saud anything about Western Europe nowadays. He in fact made a sweeping statement about the roots of "oppression "which did not make any sense and was false. You need to be clear and specific in your opinions. And re read the post that I was referring to and dont bother with the insults, it just further weakens your flawed arguments.

Yes it was you are just too immature to admit you are wrong. My post was clearly about the modern western world(not just western Europe), because i didn't state(and it isnt stted anywhere in this thread) that we are talking about anything else. So since this whole sub forum is focusing on the modern western world one has to assume any statement about society is not talking about all societies across all time and space.

My literal words where "And finnally the only meaningful system of oppression is money, whether you are rich or poor. Everything else is demonstrably meaningless." I didnt fail to specify anything, anyone who isnt drastically dishonest can tell im talking about western society now.
Reply 37
Avatar for mgi
mgi
20
Original post by josh75
Yes it was you are just too immature to admit you are wrong. My post was clearly about the modern western world(not just western Europe), because i didn't state(and it isnt stted anywhere in this thread) that we are talking about anything else. So since this whole sub forum is focusing on the modern western world one has to assume any statement about society is not talking about all societies across all time and space.

My literal words where "And finnally the only meaningful system of oppression is money, whether you are rich or poor. Everything else is demonstrably meaningless." I didnt fail to specify anything, anyone who isnt drastically dishonest can tell im talking about western society now.


But your statement about the "only meaningful means of oppression is money..... " is ridiculous, especially when you fail to define the word
" oppression "!
Original post by IH8Studying
exactly. straight white males are the least oppressed but have the most to say about oppression. usually the straight while males on TSR are always the ones to deny racism. and call everyone snowflakes.


Are you a straight white male? If not how can you make that claim? You don’t have our lived experience now do you?
Original post by Drewski
It's not a conspiracy.

You think he's a lone wolf?

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you