Submitted by ADefiniteDescription t3_zue2zg in philosophy
Zanderax t1_j1k35ha wrote
Reply to comment by ShunyShock in From sexual union to the divine – the teachings of Ibn al-‘Arabi by ADefiniteDescription
By oppression I mean anything that prevents people from living as they wish. At the extreme end this can be laws and extra-legal actions like lynching or mob violence. Towards the more moderate end can be housing, medical, and employment discrimination or social ostracisation.
In many countries it is still illegal to be gay and the punishments can be prison or death. Presenting with non-traditional gender identity in public leads to mob violence and death. Apostasy is still a crime in many countries. Clothing is legally regulated in many countries, especially for women. In many places sex outside of marriage is still illegal. Drug use is still criminalised in most of the world.
These are the kinds of things that I mean when I say oppression. A free society is one that allow everyone to live their lives as they wish without interference from others. An oppressive society is one that regulates how people live their lives and punishes those who dont conform.
ShunyShock t1_j1kfe8q wrote
Legalize all of those things, murder and assault are still illegal. If someone kills a gay person, the law must be impartial enough to rehabilitate and exact some sort of justice upon them. Freedom. We cannot go as low as to make laws in order to try to control or “stop” hate against any kind of group. That in itself is oppression against people who “hate” any kind of group. Freedom of choice, expression, and speech is extremely important. We cannot take this away from the people. People are allowed to hate, what they are not allowed is to hurt. Business owners are allowed to discriminate, that is their freedom of expression. If you want to be able to buy from whomever you want, then we need to set up federally made stores. The more choice people have, the more the people will be able to legitimately choose to be good, because they’re not being forced to. When you make hate illegal, the people push back even more and rebel, this is not how you make change, just like beating your child doesn’t make change. You cannot force the hand of the people.
Government must be small, impartial, and enthusiastic about their support of freedom, and supportive of the progression of science because this will also make the world and even better place; and they must be enthusiastic about the support of furthering even more human life, because the more life there is, the higher the probability of good change in the world their is, sure the same goes for bad, but I’d rather have a higher margin for good, than a declining one.
I’d say we need to keep oppression as a social issue, and eliminate it from politics. Love one another as you would like to be loved. Do unto others as you would like others to do unto you. Once we establish proper freedom and small government in the country, then we will have eliminated oppression completely from government. Which is why we must firstly focus on freedom. Then we can genuinely talk about oppression in social circles, and why we must treat each other correctly. :)
Zanderax t1_j1kk6pu wrote
Couldn't disagree with this more. They had to criminalise discrimination because it was destroying society.
ShunyShock t1_j1kvz4r wrote
Explain more please! :)
Zanderax t1_j1kwzp2 wrote
Ill talk specifically about the US because it is the most well known but you will find similar experiences throughout the world. The 1960s civil rights movement has been sanitised by modern education white media as a peaceful transition, it was anything but. Race riots were getting out of hand and the unrest spread across the United states. Turns out when you systemtically discriminate against a group of people for long enough those people get sick of it. When they get sick of it for long enough they justifiably become violent.
The civil rights act wasn't an act of compassion or a concession made to the civil rights movement because it was the right thing to do. It was fought for and won by violence.
chippy94 t1_j1l0huv wrote
This reads like it was written by someone who hasn't heard of Popper's paradox of tolerance.
"If we’re asked to tolerate an idea or policy that operates at the expense of someone else’s existence or well-being — i.e., any supremacist ideology, or any other thought that threatens someone’s existence on basis of identity — our obligation is actually not to tolerate it, in the name of maintaining democratic ideals."
Further we need a government or system big/strong enough to allow for this.
Zanderax t1_j1l7q8x wrote
I do wonder if I'm wasting my time engaging in good faith phlisophical arguments on this sub as many people just seem both ignorant and bigoted.
sheriffceph t1_j1n3zmo wrote
I've read through most of this thread and I thought you had a good go at arguing it well. The downvote crowd was uncalled for. I'd ask you though, what did you expect? It's a divisive subject that people believe passionately, dare I say religiously about. Both parties are going to find the other sides views repugnant.
sheriffceph t1_j1n2o8i wrote
Cheers for posting that, I didn't know about it but it hits at the heart of the unease I've felt about discussing certain subjects.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments