If an oppressor & an oppressed made equally true claims but in different subjects, would you recognise those claims as equally credible?

4 Answers

Relevance
  • Foofa
    Lv 7
    1 month ago

    For them to both be sincere in their feelings they'd have to be generalizing and practicing a form of collective punishment. 

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • 1 month ago

    "If an oppressor & an oppressed made equally true claims but in different subjects, would you recognise those claims as equally credible?"

    OK, at this point in the game, we really need to get back to proper definition then.  And in this case NO ONE is oppressed by the definition of the word.  Similarly, NO ONE is an oppressor, or even has any authority to oppress anyone, unless they are acting criminally.

    There isn't even any dictionary defined privilege going on, outside of a few minority group and women laws that white men are denied participation in.  So what is actually going on??  It's simply called "advantage".

    So now let's see how big of a deal things really are when we use the correct verbiage:

    "If an advantaged & a non-advantaged made equally true claims but in different subjects, would you recognize those claims as equally credible?"

    Suddenly it doesn't sound like getting all riled up about, does it?  And we can answer the question in the proper manner.  The answer will be yes, because different people have different advantages and disadvantages, and it has always been this way.  Women and men specifically are differently advantaged by thier physical biology.  No surprise here.  Minority races are also at a disadvantage in their majority host culture because all peoples tend to have in-group biases.  This is well understood.

    And this is exactly why we have laws that grant every individual (regardless of sex or race) the same Rights, Opportunities and Freedoms. This means the state, as the only authority with any power to oppress anyone, cannot impose its will onto anyone just because of some group affiliation.  This is the way it is in the West.  And that's pretty damn good in my books.  It's not perfect as we are all humans here, but we've striven for the best and have it down as law.

    .

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • 1 month ago

    Eh... it depends on the subject. For instance if a Latina woman were to speak on the experiences of being a Latina woman, I would see her argument as more credible than a white woman speaking about the same thing because the Latina woman has experienced it herself. Would you choose the rocket science theories of a rocket scientist over rocket science theories of a chemist?

    Also I hate to be "that person" but the proper terms you're probably looking for is the minority and the majority. You can be part of the majority and not actively participate in oppressing people but also have more privileges than the minority.

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • 1 month ago

    Your question is a bit convoluted. Taken literally the answer is yes because you state the claims are true as a part of the premise and that means they are automatically credible regardless of their subject matter. 

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.