Hmm, lets start with a simplified explination fo morals: The most villainous and destructive thing you can do is value a social construct or object over the lives or wellbeings of others (or living things if you wish to broaden your context.)

If a country's leaders does not support the lives and wellbeings of its people then that is oppression.
If a country's leaders show favour to its ideology or defends it with force over its people's well being or lives then that is also oppression. (Ideology = social construct)

Ultimately it is the collective majority of a countries people that owns the country, a leader only represents it.

I think there's no closed objective system but we can probably derive a statistically relevant indication based on subjective measures. Such as a value scale for statements like "have been looked down upon", "have been treated as inferior", etc. and then validate with "my life is close to ideal" to examine discriminant validity.

More problematic is, I think, establishing the factors causing the oppression. Is it because you're poor? a woman? Black? etc. and they will most likely not carry over from one culture to the next and since cultures aren't monolithic...

So I guess, to an extent we can look into it but better staticians should do the leg work.

Can oppression be measured and compared? — coolazice

Why not? Needed only are appropriate parameters and measurement. What and how? Well, you start somewhere and see where and how it goes, improving and refining the process in progress.

We need preliminary and tentative definitions. And scale. And no doubt

better statisticians should do the leg work. — Benkei

But what then? Does this lead to insights that might lead to reducing or eliminating oppression?

Interestingly, it seems it must, else oppression, however understood, is irrelevant. So oppression, assuming there is such a thing, can be shown. If shown, then acknowledged. We, heirs to our century's enlightenment, suppose oppression bad. But is that the lesson of history, that people have thought that what we call oppression bad? One man's oppression another man's good, useful, and necessary practice.

Then, who are the oppressors and the oppressed? On the surface an easy question: who's bleeding and being killed? But again history tells us this question is not so simply answered. In family therapy, often the one presenting symptoms is the sane one being driven crazy by the crazy ones who seem sane. Is it different between oppressor and oppressed?

And if oppression is qualified, does it need to be quantified? Data of course has its uses, but not as to existence. If you can count it, you've already affirmed it.

And so forth. This spool of thought has many windings.

One way of measuring oppression would be statistical evaluation of representation - is a particular demographic (race, ethnicity, ideology, etc.) represented proportionately in all areas that pertain to freedom from oppression (politics, opportunities, justice, and so on).

Yeah but you look at Europe and it's kinda like.. hm. Hard to even pick a side when you really know things. Terrible all around. Who killed who and who was really Messiah and who wasn't. I mean, I can do things that equate me to a divine being but so can the most lowly modern trickster to a society of ignorant cavemen. I'm not saying it's not a big deal just.. it gets kind of annoying when people try to make it as such. Maybe. It's tough being new and trying to present yourself as valid. Poor example. Being a kid and trying to stand next to your parents as an adult when.. you did nothing or even a net loss to what was expected. People take out their stress in unique ways. We'll all just have to wait and see.

Though it's probably all a distraction. Evil is real, false spirits and prophets on their way out who..in an at first hilarious yet in the end truly sad fashion believe they can take others with them. But who knows really.

Oppression occurs when the costs of an activity are externalized to those who did not agree, in an arm’s length, knowing transaction, to assume those costs for good and valuable consideration. This demands that we first consider the concept of property and the ownership thereof.

The things we need to survive are space, air, water, food, clothing, shelter, health, and protection from oppressors. When there is an overwhelming abundance of any of these things, then they are “free”. So long as anything is free, we have determined that, while one does not own all of these things to the exclusion of others, one does own what one avails himself of in the pursuit of survival. For instance, I don’t own all space, but I am accorded ownership of the space I occupy. Likewise, the air I breathe.

However, just because something is “free” does not mean it lacks value. All of these things are not only valuable, they are essential. Knowing this, some capitalists will endeavor to reduce the amount of a thing to a point where demand is such that a profit can be made on the sale thereof. Even if they don’t personally reduce the amount for mercenary reasons, the amount may be reduced naturally, or by others. In either case, the question is, how did anyone who claims ownership of anything for sale come into ownership of more than they personally need to survive? Usually they put “work” into gaining ownership. Work involves strength utilized in derogation of weakness. Strength utilized in derogation of weakness is oppression.

“First in time” often means “first in right.” Thus, you might work hard, but you may only be oppressing yourself if you are working for someone else who got there first, or who put in the work to take what you would work for. Might will make right if might makes right.

Sometimes might is in numbers. So, while I might own my next breath of air, the collective may have decided that it is okay for Cletus to pump tons of poison into the air without first having to negotiate with me for my next breath. The collective knows some stick-in-the-mud might refuse to sell, in which case Cletus couldn’t pump poison into the air and make money. So, the collective will tell me to go piss up a rope. That is might. Might will make it right with all kinds of gibberish excuses that the collective will swallow, hook, line and sinker. That is oppression.

With that foundation laid, let me try to answer the question:

A reliable and general way to assess a claim of oppression is to ask the person who claims they are being oppressed how much they would charge to assume the costs they are forced to assume against their will, for free, or for less than they want. The degrees of oppression can be measured in the difference between the dollars willing to receive, and dollars willing to pay. If there is an agreement, then there is no oppression. If there is agreement, we have free-market capitalism. It is ethical to measure that way, but might does not deem such measurement to be desirable. Might wants it's activities to be free to itself. Cost externalization is oppression and it takes might to oppress. Oppression is fascism, communism, monarchy, etc.

Treat your inferiors in the way in which you would like to be treated by your own superiors. And whenever it strikes you how much power you have over your slave, let it also strike you that your own master has just as much power over you. — Letters from a Stoic

To paraphrase Seneca:

Treat those 'less secure and worse off' than you the way you would like to be treated by those 'more secure and better off' than you.

My question: is there any reliable and general way to assess such a claim? If so, are there 'degrees' of oppression? Can oppression be measured and compared? If so, how? If not, why not? (Another possible stance: it's possible to measure oppression, but not desirable/ethical to do so. Yet another stance: it's possible but not relevant to anything important.) If context matters, which contexts are important? Which can be excluded?

Or is it just ad hoc: "I know it when I see it..."? — coolazice

Yeah and nah. I gave it a go with this challenge but so far no contrarian takers. A shorthand comes to mind now (sort of borrowed from Rawls): oppression is socioeconomic inequality forced by stronger communities on weaker communities that does not benefit the weaker communities.

Having children is oppressive and unnecessary. Oppression ends when people stop having children.

How can you oppress people that don't exist? Life is oppressive and freedom is illusory.

In nature animals produce trillions of offspring most of which get eaten as some other organisms food source. The human narrative of oppression is an ideological exercise to shift the balance of power. No power over another is justified.

There is no need to help people organise a pissing contest to see which group is the most oppressed. Oppression is created primarily through the deprivation of resources, be they political or economic. Complete oppression would mean no political or economic resources, which could be observed in slavery. The greater the access to political and economic resources, the more free someone is and therefore the less oppressed they are. To measure whether someone is oppressed or not, we should evaluate their resources. To be clear, by political resources, I mean things such as rights and protections. Economic resources could mean access to wealth, employment, and so forth. In the case of the Palestinians, they are oppressed because Israel restricts their access to many fundamental political rights and protections, through their poverty and disproportionate lack of resources. Some people will talk about oppression in smaller environments than the state level, don't know how I feel about that.

I think economic and political resources are the main ones but I'm not objecting to other kinds of resources and access being part of the discussion either, just to make that clear.

Complete oppression would mean no political or economic resources, which could be observed in slavery. The greater the access to political and economic resources, the more free someone is and therefore the less oppressed they are. To measure whether someone is oppressed or not, we should evaluate their resources. To be clear, by political resources, I mean things such as rights and protections. Economic resources could mean access to wealth, employment, and so forth. — Judaka

:100: :up:

A shorthand comes to mind now (sort of borrowed from Rawls): oppression is socioeconomic inequality forced by stronger communities on weaker communities that does not benefit the weaker communities. — 180 Proof

:100:

This brings up the question of subjectivity: If the stronger community sells it to the weaker community as a benefit to the weaker community, and the weaker community actually swallows that swill, does it cease being oppression?

Back when Dennis Miller used to be human, he said something to the effect "If trickle down isn't fair warning you are about to get pissed on, then I don't know what is." I guess many of the proletariat are into golden showers, just like their Dear Leader.

Good question. I'd say they are still oppressed even as willing collaborators in their own oppression like local collaborators at the behest of an occupying enemy in war against their own people or junkies collaborating with drug dealers against their own communities ... or Native Americans in the US, for instance, "choosing" to survive for as long as they can on "Indian Reservations" (rather than disappear "as indigenous peoples" otherwise). Furthermore, in other words, subjective acquiescence to being a slave, regardless of motives, is still slavery.

Well "measuring" oppression can be tough if we are looking for exact numbers in terms of such a person is of X descent thus he is, on a scale from 1 to 10, an 8 on the oppression scale.

But sure, there are aspects in which one can be subject to oppression more than others. Like if a person were black, Jewish and gay simultaneously, then such a person would likely be subject to more oppression than if that person were "only" gay, at certain periods and countries in human history.

Oppression is created primarily through the deprivation of resources, be they political or economic. Complete oppression would mean no political or economic resources, which could be observed in slavery. The greater the access to political and economic resources, the more free someone is and therefore the less oppressed they are. To measure whether someone is oppressed or not, we should evaluate their resources. To be clear, by political resources, I mean things such as rights and protections. Economic resources could mean access to wealth, employment, and so forth. In the case of the Palestinians, they are oppressed because Israel restricts their access to many fundamental political rights and protections, through their poverty and disproportionate lack of resources. Some people will talk about oppression in smaller environments than the state level, don't know how I feel about that. — Judaka

Why is oppression only about access to political and economic resources? What about the disabled? They get oppressed by people's preconceived attitudes and treatment. Nature oppresses the sick or those with various conditions. Societies place standards on jobs and behavior and that can oppress the disabled. Standards oppress.



Sure black, gay, and jewish does beat out only being gay on the oppression scale. How about the guy's family though? How about wealth? How does someone who grew up black, gay, jewish and wealthy compare with someone who grew up middle class, hispanic, and straight and cisgender? Who is more oppressed? Moreover, what does it mean for the more oppressed party: should we be taking some sort of action in response?

Why is oppression only about access to political and economic resources? What about the disabled? They get oppressed by people's preconceived attitudes and treatment. Nature oppresses the sick or those with various conditions. Societies place standards on jobs and behavior and that can oppress the disabled. Standards oppress. — BitconnectCarlos

Bitconnect, is this forum turning you? This sounds like something banno or streetlightx would say...

How do you define oppression? What does it mean to be "oppressed" by attitudes and treatment? And are you calling social convention a system of oppression?

Sure, those are factors too. Wealth will shield or help out in many circumstances, so in this respect in today's society having more money rather than less, would mitigate the circumstances to some extent.

I think each issue should be taken in turn. If a person is homophobic but not racist, then one deals with that. But if the person is racist but not homophobic then that is the issue to work on. I think education, exposure and rational arguments are the best way to deal with these issues.

Some people will never change the way they view the world. Some may lessen the intensity of such feelings over time.

It's not about giving out a medal to those who are most oppressed. It's about pointing out that some people deal with more issues than others. Which does not make any persons particular grievance therefore invalid.

Bitconnect, is this forum turning you? This sounds like something banno or streetlightx would say...

How do you define oppression? What does it mean to be "oppressed" by attitudes and treatment? And are you calling social convention a system of oppression? — Judaka

Standards exclude certain types. Whether it's standards for a job, beauty standards, standards for a parent, for a student... all of these roles carry expectations. The expectation is that you meet those standards and that you don't drop below and there can be real social costs to dropping below. Do you see how standards and attitudes could be said to "oppress" in this way? They create pressure, fear, anxiety, psychological consequences.

I understand what you're saying but you're leaving the door open for people to say that oppression can actually be a good thing. I'm not sure if I want to agree that things like social convention, manners, parental expectations are all forms of oppression... Expectations is a very low bar to be setting for oppression.

[delete]

So a side-effect of competition is oppression? If a person has a low sexual market value and nobody wants to date them, that's a form of oppression? Oppression requires a group with power to abuse that power to restrict the political and economic resources of others.

Jobs and positions in society represent political and economic resources, so that fits nicely into my explanation of oppression. However, I don't accept that just any old reason which is outside of one's control constitutes oppression. We need someone, a group, a system or something to be doing the oppressing. "Nature" doesn't cut it.

Such as a value scale for statements like "have been looked down upon", "have been treated as inferior", etc. and then validate with "my life is close to ideal" to examine discriminant validity. — Benkei

Murderers are historically looked down upon and treated as inferior, and surely their lives are far from ideal. So an oppressed category of people?

oppression is socioeconomic inequality forced by stronger communities on weaker communities that does not benefit the weaker communities. — 180 Proof

The obvious questions this raises: and how do you measure which is the strong and which the weak? Is there always a strong and a weak? Is political reality a zero-sum game? Even if a strong and a weak, what happens when the roles swap over time - does oppression then change hands as well? What is the ultimate source of this strong attacking the weak?

But sure, there are aspects in which one can be subject to oppression more than others. Like if a person were black, Jewish and gay simultaneously, then such a person would likely be subject to more oppression than if that person were "only" gay, at certain periods and countries in human history. — Manuel

So oppression affects individuals as well as groups. This would seem to make measuring it more complicated, because the particular individual could be less oppressed than the group they represent - in which case what does the group represent? A moving average?

Complete oppression would mean no political or economic resources, which could be observed in slavery. — Judaka

Ok, but consider: you can be a well-fed slave or a slave who is being starved and tortured. Are these two slaves facing the same level of oppression? Or put another way: is oppression based on the lack of potential good, or the existence of actual bad?

If a person has a low sexual market value and nobody wants to date them, that's a form of oppression? Oppression requires a group with power to abuse that power to restrict the political and economic resources of others. — Judaka

I think there's a strong case to be made that being low SMV or just being socially undesirable in general is a form of oppression by society (as well as arguably nature.) Socially undesirable people certainly face discrimination across a wide number of areas.

Jobs and positions in society represent political and economic resources, so that fits nicely into my explanation of oppression. — Judaka

Alright, but those in powerful positions in society can also set or change standards, agree? Beauty standards, fashion, etc. Art can refashion messages and help people view issues in new ways.

Some people will never change the way they view the world. Some may lessen the intensity of such feelings over time. — Manuel

Do you consider fighting oppression as something that's more about changing other people's attitudes, or do you see anything in yourself or your peers that maybe contributes to the issue in the form of reinforcing or upholding certain standards?

The obvious questions this raises: and how do you measure which is the strong and which the weak? — coolazice

Cui bono? the Romans said. Who suffers more in blood and humiliiation than whom – the weaker. Who effectively controls the lives and livelihoods of whom – the stronger. Isn't the slaveholder stronger than the slave? Aren't slaves in bondage weaker than the those running the slave-system?

Is there always a strong and a weak?

Probably not "always"; when overwhelming strength meets (sniffs out) vulnerable weakness, human history teaches that oppression – military aggression (predation), conquest ("spoils of war" ~ captive/occupied populations), exploitation & domination – is far more likely to occur and re-occur than not.

Is political reality a zero-sum game?

Politics, like commerce, is nonzero-sum (i.e. negotiated, regulated, contractual trade); warfare & gangsterism, however, are zero-sum (i.e. organized crimes).

Even if a strong and a weak, what happens when the roles swap over time - does oppression then change hands as well?

Slave revolts sometime succeed. Former slaveholders have been known to find themselves in somebody else's chains sooner or later. Pendulums swing, slave-states rise and fall. Fuckers gorged on murder & misery forget in their sanguine stupors that 'the status quo' never lasts. Anicca, panta rhei, yinyang, bitches! Irie. :fire:

What is the ultimate source of this strong attacking the weak?

There is no "ultimate source" that I can see, cool; bondage takes two ... and opportunity ... and murderous violence ... and inhuman greed & power lust ... and "the banality of evil" of slave-system functionaries-beneficiaries ... and acquiescent victims ... and excruciatingly patient survivors ... for the stronger to attack the weaker for "profit & glory". Feral wolf packs will always attack sheep unguarded, or unguided, by disciplined sheepdogs.

Histories are written in the blood of the vanquished by the victors, and after too many millennia now all blood is mixed thickly, compromised, "equal". Thus, the original sin of Abrahamic religions: the scriptual exclusion of commandments such as THOU SHALL NOT TAKE OR HOLD ANY SLAVES and THOU SHALL NOT RAPE ANY ONE. Why this oversight? Such sacred prohibitions do not profit or glorify the stronger.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MSAWWePAGWA :fire:

The obvious questions this raises: and how do you measure which is the strong and which the weak? — coolazice

Even the "weak" have responsibility and can be atrocious, sometimes even rivaling levels of the "strong" abusers -- Jewish policemen during WWII, for instance could be quite brutal. Weak does not mean good; strong does not mean bad. Yes, there were truly innocent victims in the Holocaust but all too often the reason these people became victims was because of decisions made by numerous authorities at many different levels of the decision-making process who let the orders pass down because "they had no choice" because they were simply "victims." Hitler personally murdered no one. The Holocaust could not have occurred with the cooperation of those at lower levels.

Those who consider themselves powerless victims are often the most vicious and the least inclined to accept responsibility. If you don't believe me consider look into the story of Chaim Rumkowski who led the Lodz ghetto, and there were other Jewish community leaders like that.

There are even situations where people claim both parties are oppressed, but one is more oppressed than the other. — coolazice

You'd have to arrive at quantifiable criteria to measure that establishes a certain definition of what constitutes oppression in order to avoid subjective evaluations.

A good example of that would be the misery index:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misery_index_(economics)

They create pressure, fear, anxiety, psychological consequences. — BitconnectCarlos

You're making @Andrew4Handel's case :lol:

Those who consider themselves powerless victims are often the most vicious and the least inclined to accept responsibility. If you don't believe me consider look into the story of Chaim Rumkowski who led the Lodz ghetto, and there were other Jewish community leaders like that. — BitconnectCarlos

Isn't that Hannah Arendt's main argument? "Just doing my job" should not be an excuse. Of course, the people who end up in those kind of positions are selected (or rather "naturally selected) because of their ability to follow orders.

Good call - I'm reading Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem right now and it's an amazing account on this phenomenon. She makes the point that these people - these functionaries somewhere in the chain of command -- always had some independent decisions to make that influenced how quickly or efficiently the process went. The main point she makes is that moral responsibility is pervasive at every level throughout these kind of events.

But man does she give it to those Jewish community leaders. But also the fact that distinctions were able to be drawn between foreign and non-foreign Jews and distinctions like these were able to go unquestioned. It's just a fact of life that when people's lives are at stake you should not expect the best from them - some, absolutely... but most, no.