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).
