Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.CitesClass[20]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[21]

Details

Caselist.CitesClass[20]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-10-19 00:03:34.610
	1	+2016-10-19 00:03:34.0

Caselist.CitesClass[21]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,17 @@
	1	+Link:
	2	+Your attempt to prioritize forms of oppression is problematic since it kills any meaningful resistance to oppression.
	3	+McDonald and Coleman 99
	4	+Peter McDonald and Mikki Coleman, Deconstructing hierarchies of oppression and adopting a 'multiple model' approach to anti-oppressive practice. Social Work Education serial online. March 1999;18(1):19.
	5	+“By definition, the privileged group within a hierarchy tends to have the maximum access to necessary commodities, as well as political power and social status. Those at the lower levels of the pyramid must either conform to the rules and desires of those at the highest point, in exchange for a given share of the society's resources; or else those at the lower levels must engage in a constant struggle with those at the very base of the pyramid for whatever resources are left in society after the privileged group have taken the majority share. In fact, it is in the interests of those at the top of the hierarchy to allow (or actively to encourage) a certain amount of social conflict between those at the lower levels, and those at the base. While the mass of people below can be encouraged to fight amongst themselves, rather than uniting for a common cause, the privileged group can more easily maintain their position at the top of the hierarchy, as Freire asserted under a heading specifically entitled 'Divide and Rule': This is another fundamental dimension of the theory of oppressive action which is as old as oppression itself. As the oppressor minority subordinates and dominates the majority, it must divide it and keep it divided in order to remain in power. The minority cannot permit itself the luxury of tolerating the unification of the people, which would undoubtedly signify a serious threat to their own hegemony. Accordingly, the oppressors halt by any means (including violence) any action which in even incipient fashion could awaken the oppressed to the need for unity. Concepts such as unity, organization and struggle arc immediately labelled as dangerous. In fact, of course, these concepts are dangerous—to the oppressors—for their realization is necessary to actions of liberation. It is in the interest of the oppressor to weaken the oppressed still further, to isolate them, to create and deepen rifts among them. This is done by varied means, from the repressive methods of the government bureaucracy, to the forms of cultural action with which they manipulate the people by giving them the impression that they arc being helped. (Freire, 1996, p. 122)”
	6	+
	7	+Turns Case:
	8	+This turns your role of the ballot since the means of ranking oppression only leads oppressed groups to oppress other groups, allowing the elites to go unchecked.
	9	+McDonald and Coleman 99
	10	+Peter McDonald and Mikki Coleman, Deconstructing hierarchies of oppression and adopting a 'multiple model' approach to anti-oppressive practice. Social Work Education serial online. March 1999;18(1):19.
	11	+“The competition between the members of oppressed groups for what they might perceive as a strictly limited supply of essential resources has some particularly unpleasant and dangerous side-effects. Groups which have suffered long histories of oppression can in turn use whatever power or influence they may have to discriminate against members of other oppressed social groups, believing their own concerns to be most important. Alternatively, people who have been oppressed might, consciously or unconsciously, absorb the values and beliefs of their oppressors. This may lead to 'internalised oppression', whereby members of oppressed groups may come to believe that the stereotypes, misinformation or propaganda being spread about their group are true (or partly true), so that they may develop low self-esteem, or they may behave in ways that are essentially consistent with their social stereotypes. Members of oppressed groups might even compete with other oppressed groups over which of them is most oppressed and which of them is least oppressed, creating yet another hierarchy while fighting for the moral high ground. Members of one oppressed group may have attitudes or behave in ways which oppress members of other groups: ... When you're on the bottom of a pile of oppressed peoples, a community will look for a scapegoat, usually a minority to oppress; this somehow makes the oppressed feel better, boosting the ego. That community will also join with other communities to oppress with more force. This will cross race, gender, class and ability. Black will join with white, able-bodied with disabled, men with women to oppress those who they feel are different or feel threatened by. (Quartcy, 1994).”
	12	+
	13	+Alt:
	14	+Your ranking of oppression only retrenches the mindset of the oppressor meaning that your method to resisting oppression is flawed and turns your case—thus the alt is recognizing all forms as being equally bad can truly create a meaningful resistance to oppression. To clarify, my argument is not all forms of oppression are the same, rather it is that when you try rank oppression, it shatters resistance to oppression and keeps the oppressors in power.
	15	+McDonald and Coleman 99
	16	+Peter McDonald and Mikki Coleman, Deconstructing hierarchies of oppression and adopting a 'multiple model' approach to anti-oppressive practice. Social Work Education serial online. March 1999;18(1):19.
	17	+“Having deconstructed 'hierarchies of oppression' and established that any credence given to their acceptability can only be a destructive force, it follows therefore that their inverse, 'hierarchies of oppressive experiences', i.e. 'my oppression is worse/more important than your oppression', can only be similarly counter-productive to anti-oppressive practices and goals, and that therefore: ... there should be no perceived hierarchy of oppressive experiences but a recognition of the cumulative effect of racism, sexism and disablist practices ... (Stuart, 1992). As different forms of oppression are not lived out separately or in a hierarchical structure. (Begum, 1994, pp. 17-18) Richie suggests that giving credence to a 'hierarchy of oppressions' can only 'lead people to dangerous places' (Richie, I996a). If it can be argued that if all forms of oppression arc dehumanising and therefore unacceptable, it then becomes as meaningless to speculate who is either more oppressed or less oppressed, as it would be to give consideration to concepts of being 'a bit pregnant' or 'very dead'. Any speculation of 'how much?’ in relation to another individual or group, becomes a fatuous notion in all instances. People are either pregnant or not, dead or not dead, oppressed or not oppressed, and it is oppression itself in all its forms that must be challenged. Thus, ultimately, any theoretical framework which reifies the acceptability of a hierarchy, whereby one form of oppression is deemed more acceptable, or less unacceptable, than another form, can be said to collude with supremacist thinking which seeks to rationalise dominance and marginalisation of one oppressed group in relation to another.”

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-10-19 00:03:35.118

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Rodrigo Paramo

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Montgomery RM

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+16

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+6

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Strake Jesuit Li Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+1 - Heirarchy K

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+St Marks