> It's possible you're bringing outside views into the discussion.
It's literally impossible for anybody to ever not. There's no such thing as a blank slate human who's capable of conversing.
Edit for response: To be clear, I don't think makotech222 argued their point well. But expecting people to enter a conversation without any outside ideas influencing their mindset is patently absurd.
> A vast proportion of non-white crime is manufactured by cops and the media to scare whites into bringing back slavery in all but name. Black neighborhoods are actually the safest places in America if racist cops would stop harassing innocent citizens just because they are PoC.
These are pretty sensational claims, do you have hard statistically relevant evidence for this?
I'm pretty sure their comment is a parody of the parent comment that makes a lot of outrageous claims with no evidence, followed by a slogan you can chant at protests.
Speaking as a former working-class person from a long lineage of working class people, this is obviously and overt nonsense. The criminal justice system and the (highly distributed) institution of policing in particular must be improved and reformed, but the idea that they "oppress working class people" in any meaningful way is severely disconnected from reality (well, communist countries notwithstanding).
EDIT: Wow, this post was downvoted the very moment I posted it (<1s). Good work HN.
EDIT 2: retracted claim that the parent was lying as opposed to the more charitable interpretation of their error.
I don't think you had to go as far as asserting that the parent is overtly lying. It's far from impossible to honestly believe the police "oppress working class people", especially if you have any personal experience to bias your view that way.
You complain about being downvoted, but your entire post is just calling the post "obviously and overt nonsense" and claiming it is a lie, without making any attempt to explain why. Not exactly a helpful post.
Wikipedia defines the police as "a constituted body of persons empowered by a state, with the aim to enforce the law, to ensure the safety, health and possessions of citizens, and to prevent crime and civil disorder".
If you are claiming that the police are in fact, "a force which exists to terrorize working class people in order to force them to work for minimum wage" then I think the burden of proof is on you.
This is a very weird argument. No one is talking about the definition of the term, they are talking about the implementation as it exists in the US right now.
This is like saying that just because the DPRK has "democratic" in the name, it must be a democratic nation.
You're misusing the concept of "burden of proof" as a rhetorical attack. The parent is not asserting the root comment to be true with no proof - they're pointing out why the response was bad. Upon whom the burden of proof lies has no bearing on that.
"They are a force which exists to terrorize working class people in order to force them to work for minimum wage. They are an investment by the ruling class which allows them to maintain their profits on marginalized workers."
Is just over the top absurdist. It's easily debunked by asking someone making above minimal wage "are you being forced to work by the police?" Will they bust down your door and address you for failure to accept employment at minimum wage?
Well, can you sleep on the street in an American city? Can you solicit charity? Are you allowed to eat a piece of bread to avoid dying of hunger, even if you have no money?
Or will the police fine you and jail you?
I don't agree with your reading of the original argument, but if you want to take it extremely literally, the police do actually force you to work, assuming you do not have money or relations to support yourself without working. And of course, the prison system will literally force you to work if you get that far. Of course, they are doing this through their enforcement of local, state, or federal laws, not by their own mandate, but they are still the ones ultimately doing these actions.
Of course, there are much more faitfhful readings of the original argument that have more nuanced responses.
> Well, can you sleep on the street in an American city? Can you solicit charity? Are you allowed to eat a piece of bread to avoid dying of hunger, even if you have no money?
In every major US city I’ve been to you can do this.
I'm not saying I agree with the argument necessarily, but your counter-argument here is obviously flawed: oppressed peoples can't speak their mind freely, and may not have the information to be able to understand their situation fully. To claim that just because you ask someone "are you being oppressed" and they say "no", that they are therefore not being oppressed seems naive at best.
They can't? The government is arresting these people for speaking? If so we have a 1st amendment violation.
Private corporations? That's an issue between the person and the corporation. We don't have rights protecting speech there and protecting that agreement [staying employeed]. However, the private insitution do not have the right to imprison someone over speech they do not like.
> may not have the information to be able to understand their situation fully
Are you talking about the education about this? The federal system has a minimum amount of education guaranteed per person. Typically most of the economy is run by people who have the education and skills. As an individual you do have the right to congregate with others and speak with each others about situations. Creating a union is legal. (Although that's an annoyingly controversial practice)
> To claim that just because you ask someone "are you being oppressed" and they say "no", that they are therefore not being oppressed seems naive at best.
That is your judgment and evaluation of the situation. Why should we believe this guy Latty on the internet about a third party's situation?
I've been a member of the alleged oppress class and can confirm that we are indeed not oppressed and there is no police conspiracy that has ever prevented me or my "oppressed" working class family, friends, etc from speaking up. Of course, if you're really bent on the conspiracy explanation, you might say that I'm still oppressed and I'm saying this in duress (me denying my oppression is proof of my oppression, ordeal by water, etc).
There’s nothing to refute; the parent didn’t support their own claim. How can I prove a negative? Anyway, it’s overt ideological propaganda; I don’t owe a substantial response.
