Are you trying to make a distinction with the "a problem" and "the problem."? What is that distinction?

"Offensiveness" really has nothing to do with oppression. Why are you confused about this? Because they both start with an "o"? Offensiveness, oppression, oatmeal, ocelots...? Where does it stop?

If any connection is to be effortfully constructed, I would say that people of the "superior" group are prone to crying "Offensive! Offensive!" when people of the oppressed group speak upn. They can't say they are actually being harmed, oppressed or otherwise molested, so they say "I am offended" and expect the world to come to a halt. It's a joke, really. "Oh, you're offended? Really? Oh, dear, what can we do?" I see 'that is offensive!" being used as a tool of the oppressors to silence dissenting speech and actions.

Everybody is pretty much guaranteed a degree of 'offensiveness" just by getting out of bed and facing the world every day. Everyone is offended by something.  e.g., I'm offended by ignorant opinions, but people have a right to express them.

Being offended is not being oppressed.

If there's some rational connection between the two that I'm not seeing, please explain it to me.

I think that is the intent of the oppressors, or at least the fondest wish -- but it's not achievable. An example i'm thinking of is slave-owners (part of the oppressor class) making it illegal for slaves to read -- and even illegal for anyone to teach a slave to read. The intent was to keep slaves from learning, receiving information, communicating and telling their experiences. But you can't actually prevent thought. Although as soon as it's technologically possible, I'm sure the Bush administration will implement it on a grand scale.

Yes. This is why the 'oppressor class" hates the internet and wants to crush it through corporatist control.

In order to advance and develop thinking, people also need access to truth -- which is why censorship is such a powerful and essential tool of oppressors... and another reason they hate the internet. And hate democracy.

I think it is not all offensiveness that is the problem. You're right.  
Just the offensiveness intended as a means for injecting hatred.

Sometimes something meant only in love can offend.
Sometimes offensiveness is a tool to communicate hatred.

Oppression is a problem.
Hatred, or otherwise the lack of respect, is the problem.

I think that is the intent of the oppressors, or at least the fondest wish -- but it's not achievable.

I believe it is achievable - the internet does help - but not all nations have the internet.

From what I hear (don't know if it is true) the media in the states are limited in their ability to accurately report on the war in Iraq - this limits freedom of expression and consequently freedom of thought. People believe what they read - they are limited in their understanding - due to freedom of expression.

darn --- incorrectly stated --- Max posted the line under the quote.

My words start with  ... "I believe it is achievable ..

and I should have finished by stating - due to limitations put on freedom of expression.

I really need an edit function Gareth. sad face.

I think that you have hit the nail on the head.
I would also add that many oppressors use devious behind the scenes methods in order to  obtain / maintain their objectives & to further oppress.

Freedom of speech is essential to obtain / maintain balance & equality.

I'm curious -how do you define 'oppressor class' Max?

Anything that he wants, that other people disagree with

Brushing aside what's-his-names asinine comment, I think I can explain what oppressor classes are. There are other names, but I'm okay leaving it at this one. And they're not really my definitions, it's just the way things are.

The oppressor group is defined by a complex of power and privilege (largely or completely unearned) that goes along with being part of that group. The correlative, of course, is that being outside those groups carries disempowerment and disadvantage.

The complication here is that all people have multiple group/class identities and that in some of those identities we may be part of the oppressed and in others we may be part of the oppressors.

I get a lot of systemic advantage and privilege because I am part of several such groups -- I'm white, I'm male, I'm educated, I make pretty decent money. but on the other hand, I am shut out of heterosexual privilege and I am reaching an age (54 in two weeks!) that I don't get the privileges that go with being of prime age. I don't get full NT advantage because I'm ADHD, but i probably get more NT advantage than a lot of people on the spectrum. There are isolated times and places where my 'disadvantaged" identities may actually work to my advantage, but they are isolated and atypical. They are not the way the greater society tilts.

When this is pointed out -- as obvious as it all is -- people rush to deny that they are part of advantaged groups. Maybe that's better stated as: they deny that the groups they are part of have an unfair advantage in terms of power and privilege. No one wants to admit they have systemic unearned advantages. Everyone wants to believe everything good that falls their way happens because they have somehow "earned" it, either by their hard work or their inate, overwhelming natural wonderfulness.

My favorite current example of this is the eternally despicable George W. Bush. He has repeated the following little shtick in several recent appearances. He apparently thinks it's very clever and that it demonstrates what a terribly superior individual he is. He says of his supposed dear friend and closest adviser, Condoleeza Rice, "She's got the PhD and I'm the C student -- but look who's the president. I tell her, you may have the PhD, but look who's the president. It's me, not you."

Yes, it's you, you crusty piece of dog crap. Do you suppose it has anything to do with you being a white, male, millionaire, son-of-a-president? No, no. It's just that George is a natural-born sweet-smelling pile of Superiority.

Denying one's own group privilege means they also must either blame the disempowered and  disadvantaged, or somehow deny that such disempowerment and disadvantage exists.

If you make two columns on the blackboard, one saying "empowered group" and the other saying "disempowered group" (or whatever labels one might use) even kids can list the groups. It's no big mystery. We all know. It's just that some desperately need to deny.

If I say "white" -- they know which column it goes in. if I say 'female" they know. We all know.  The +/- dyads of systemic advantage/disadvantage form a very long list, and most people see themselves on both sides of the ledger from one dyad to the next.

male/female
whiite/black
straight/gay
NT/AS
rich/poor
Christian/atheist
able-bodied/disabled
IQ>100 / IQ<100
native born/foreigner
thin/fat
homeowner/homeless
attractive/unattractive

It has amazed me some of the things kids see and realize and add to the list.

And it's fascinating to look at what powers and privileges the + list has vis-a-vis the - group. And to look at what exploitation of the - group takes place.

It's also important to note that not every group identity one holds is of a particularly defining nature. My being white gets me a lot more advantage than I lose for being ADHD. Race in America is a much more powerful identifier than is ADHD/non-ADHD.

Anyway.

that's a bit about how I see it.

Well stated Max.

Attitudes related to power and privilege are so institutionalised within society - people who are able to take advantage are often blind to the benefits.

I like to think things are improving - somewhat.

Condoleeza comes across to me as being a puppet.

I agree. Well put, Max.

And I'm not surprised by Ms Rice's being seen as a puppet - how can she have any clout when even her alleged friends are telling her, all the time, that she has her position not because of but in spite of who she is.

Agreed. Willfully blind. They hate having to see it. And I don't really understand why. They (we) have so much, why not be generous enough to at least contribute some honesty to the discussion.

There is a certain sort of black person that the right-wingers just love -- and subservience is a big part of it.

I love the sn.. Woman from Mars   It fits so well for female aspies. We are.