You think that Libertarians own the word. I figured as much, but no, it has a history of being used in other contexts in academic texts.
My dictionary:
coerce |kōˈərs|
verb [ with obj. ]
persuade (an unwilling person) to do something by using force or threats: they were coerced into silence.
• obtain (something) by such means: their confessions were allegedly coerced by torture.
From a strictly semantic (completely morally neutral) perspective, the water-seller doesn't "coerce" the man to die in the desert. In fact, from a strictly semantic perspective, the
man would be coercing the unwilling water-seller, were that the case.
Even if the water-seller were wrong, and the man right, in doing so.
You misused the word. It's OK, really. I only mention it because it's ironic, you having gone there first. :lol:
What is the scenario at hand? I don't think that's been defined.
Look at the thread title. It's obvious that the context of the putative oppression would be gays in America.
I stand by my assertion: there is no "private" oppression of gays in America today. There may be individual discrimination against gays by straights (or vice versa), but there is no widespread, ongoing mistreatment – except, of course, for government.
I also stand by the implication that this is true for other minorities as well.
There are cases of this though. Also, how many instances makes a pattern? A single instance obviously doesn't, you're right about that, but it seems like any plural of instances would be sufficient to establish oppression to a degree that differs only in magnitude based on the size of that number.
I'm sure you could find a "plural of instances" of black-on-white crime during the era of white oppression of blacks. Had these black criminals suddenly become the "oppressors"?
I don't buy it. Just because there is no formally codified oppression as policy doesn't mean that there isn't institutional oppression hidden at deeper levels. An example: a kid is a straight A student until the 3rd grade, at which point the distress of puberty reveals that they're transgender. Suddenly none of the teachers can read the kid's handwriting, the kid's attempts at engagement with the material are now "outbursts", there are complaints of "inappropriate and disruptive behavior" (intentionally left unspecified and never clarified even if requested), and the continuation of this "inappropriate and disruptive behavior" is "disobedience to authority". Suddenly a straight A student who was set for a gifted and talented program is an F student with behavioral problems headed for an alternative school where the abuse will be exponentially compounded, out of sight from mainstream america and with plenty of convenient excuses to justify it that nobody will ever dig into. This is the most obvious example I could think of because it involves two different interpretations of the same exact behavior at different times, so it's not meant to say anything about one minority group or another.
There are any number of behavioral issues which will, rather arbitrarily, be considered "disruptive" and lead to this sort of "academic shunning" by schools.
Of course, these schools are run by government, so any oppression they engender is, yet again, caused by government. (Sorry, you can't have that one.
)
There are, of course, private schools of the conservative
and hyper-tolerant varieties, so it's hard to say anybody's "oppressed" in that regard.
In Mormon Utah it's common to send your kid to a reeducation camp if they like dick too obviously. Most of what the average gay person considers discrimination is petty nonsense like being called names or not getting a tax break for having a **** buddy, and in that respect I think homosexuals have been placed substantially too high on the national agenda, whether in comparison to economic issues and foreign affairs issues or even in comparison to other minority issues, but that doesn't mean discrimination outside of the government doesn't exist. That's taking the argument too far.
For the gays I know, it's not really about the tax benefits. They tend to recite horror stories of partners dying while visiting "unfriendly" family in states which don't recognize their marriage, and being as a result totally left out of everything from the funeral to the inheritance.
And, yes, I would say that
entire states doing something qualifies as "oppressive", by definition.
As for Mormon Utah, you've got me there. But, I
could say it doesn't count. I'm fairly certain Mormon Utah would discriminate/oppress
me, and I'm white, heterosexual, not a criminal, etc. :lol:
Government has passed a narrow range of laws, but criminals don't obey laws, find creative ways to break them, and exist everywhere.
Which laws are you talking about now?
If you're talking about discrimination by serious criminal gangs, I'd say it's hard to qualify the inability, due to racism, to work as a criminal as "oppression".
Otherwise, I'd be interested if you could provide an example of a single legitimate industry or major business (outside of government) in America which "oppresses" any commonly recognized minority group.
