An rebutted assertion is an answer to the question. Furthermore, it is the nature of the examples which is dispositive. The examples are of systems of power oppressing people. There’s no example of systems of power analyzed as you describe. They are analyzed as oppressive.
So, once again, the proposal labels and treats capitalism as oppressive because:
So, the four “I”s of oppression are applied to systems of power that aren’t oppressive doesn’t make sense. Let’s take these 4 “I”s of oppression and analyze them to systems in which they have no applicability. Apply the four “I”s to systems that aren’t oppressive at all. That makes no sense.
Of course, that alone doesn’t make sense but then the proposal provides instances of systems of power that has “oppressed” people, and provides no examples or instances where the four “I”s aren’t applicable or where the systems of power aren’t oppressing people, thereby telegraphing the systems of power as oppressive. What is more revealing is the LACK of any example where the four “I”s are analyzed in any manner you described. The examples use one or more of the four “I”s to show systems of power that oppress.
And there’s a reason why I provided so much prose from the proposal. The language from the proposal is compelling, in its entirety and in individual parts although part of the whole.
Again, the language of the proposal reveals I’m right. “Discussions of systems of power should include both the struggles that come with being entangled and impacted by these systems, but also resistance to them.”
The “struggles” and “entanglement” with the systems of power and “resistance to” the systems of power, yes, of course, because they are oppressive. That’s why the four “I”s of oppression can be used to analyze them because they are oppressive. The proposal isn’t suggesting application of the four “I”s of oppression to gauge whether the system of power is oppressive.
The proposal does label and treat capitalism, a system of power, as oppressive, an oppressive system people that people “struggle” and “resist.” I mean, it is soooo common for people to resist non-oppressive systems!
Perceived weakness? Let’s get something straight. It is every appearance of a weakness, and indeed a weakness, when you can’t or won’t tell me or anyone else how exactly you know when something is unjust, cruel, such that it is then oppressive.
You have plenty of company as several others decreed capitalism as oppressive, some part of it as oppressive, but couldn’t, can’t, tell anyone how they know it! How do they know it’s oppressive? How do you?
No, let’s try this the mature way, of you revealing how exactly you know it is oppressive or when it comes oppressive. The “middle school way” was your diatribe about “sniping,” thereby obscuring your act of asserting capitalism as oppressive or when it so becomes oppressive, without enlightening us as to how you know it. That was middle school.
Given the subjective nature of the terms of oppressive, unjust, cruel, I know better than to try. Which is another way of saying that I cannot conceive of an objective rule or principle for determining when or whether capitalism is oppressive. Of course, this isn’t or should be too revealing, as I after all said the proposal was editorializing, it was propaganda.
