please, expand the reasoning of why you think an entire class of people should be omitted from a discussion.
Everything else is a tactic to arrive at a payment. Which is why eliminating the target group's right to an opinion is such an important step.
Do slave owners get a seat at the table when discussing whether or not and how slaves are oppressed?
Do white people who support Jim Crow laws get a seat at the table when discussing whether or not and how black people are oppressed?
Does a religious majority get a seat at the table when discussing whether or not and how a religious minority is oppressed?
The argument is: those that are not affected by the oppression discussed (who may even be doing the oppressing) simply cannot have an objective discussion on whether or not and how a community is being oppressed. How do you know what that oppression is and feels like to tell someone that they are not being oppressed? Therefore, where a white cis-het male's opinion is productive is only when discussing how they can help-- not when discussing whether or not that oppression exists.
In the same vein, I am male. My opinion is not productive when discussing whether or not and how women are oppressed. Consider this scenario: male politicians are deciding on laws that govern women's bodies; women say they are oppressed; men say no you're not oppressed. Do you see why men's opinion are not productive here? My opinion only matters when discussing how I can help women feel less oppressed.
At the end of the day, you have the freedom and right to discuss all you want. But ask yourself, is your discussion productive or destructive to someone else. Your arguments will never convince an oppressed community that they are not oppressed, that's gaslighting. It will only convince other unaffected people against them-- which is why it's destructive to discuss the existence of oppression when you are not the oppressed.
So the Russians get a seat at the table when discussing if Russian-born Ukrainians are being oppressed? But the ethnic Ukrainians have no say.
So gun rights activists get a seat at the table when we discuss if their 2nd amendment rights are being oppressed? But the gun-owning majority gets no say?
Do members of the Church of Scientology sit alone at an empty table when discussing how they are oppressed? Members of major religions who have members routinely massacred have no say?
How about white supremacists? They’re a small minority. I’m sure they’d claim to be oppressed.
How about men being unfairly oppressed by “me too”? No place at the table for women!
Hopefully you can see how ridiculous your position is. You’re choosing cherry-picked situations where the answer is something you agree with. You’re also assuming that no group of people would ever deem themselves to be oppressed when they are in fact not - but that’s clearly not the case! You’re also forgetting that it’s entirely possible for a minority to oppress a majority - just look at Syria.
at the same time, I think your position is too absolute. to give you an example, I used to work in a small pizza place. one day a black dude came in and ordered eight slices of pizza. my coworker informed him that he was significantly overpaying and could save money by ordering a whole 16" pizza instead. the guy instantly flew off the handle: "you think I don't understand math?", "would you ask a white person that question?", "I didn't go to school for two years to be talked down to by the likes of you", etc. my coworker (a white dude) explained that, in fact, he asked everyone who ordered eight slices that question as it was store policy (it was) and that it had nothing to do with race.
as far as I understand it, racism was not happening in that situation. was it wrong of my coworker to point that out, or should he just have accepted that he didn't deserve a "seat at the table"? or am I wrong, and my coworker was being racist while treating this man exactly the same as all the other customers?
what I'm trying to understand is what exactly "the table" is and what it means for a person to respect that they don't get a seat at it. should my coworker have just stood there and not defended himself? or should he have gone so far as to apologise for something he didn't understand or think he did? was making any attempt to defend himself or correct the perceived misunderstanding presuming to have a seat at "the table"? am I recentering the discussion around white men just by asking how he should have handled it?
I'll have a look at the video later, can't watch at work.
It sure must suck to get yelled at by someone, especially when it's confusing or doesn't make sense. Want to know what's worse than getting yelled at? Getting shot by the authorities.
tbh I'm starting to get the impression that you are deliberately sidestepping my question, but maybe I just haven't done a good job with phrasing it. all I'm really asking is whether the coworker in the story is taking a seat at "the table" by making any attempt to explain whatsoever.
Clearly (as an oppressor) I am excluded from any objective discussion of the issue.
I mean, your example is literally spot on. You as a parent can't be objective - you have to oppress your children to get them to adhere to your ideals of the household.
* having expectations involuntarily set on your performing of activities that you would not voluntarily perform otherwise;
* punishment for failing to meet those expectations, rather than a reward for meeting those expectations
With the contradictory idea of the person setting the expectations and punishments being "objective" in a discussion.
Certainly if the request from the children is "we don't want to clean our rooms", the only truly objective response is to either:
a) incentivize them to clean their rooms with negotiated rewards and benefits, in a true market sense b) convince them through logic and rhetoric to voluntarily choose to clean their rooms; c) agree that they don't have to clean their rooms.
The entire idea of patriarchy in civil rights is that white cis-het men believe they know what's best for everyone in society-- and this power is given to them by society through politics. That's precisely what these "social justice" movements are trying change, the power structure, and increase representation in politics and society at large. Would you argue that is it right for white cis-het men to "parent" other communities in the same way you parent your children?