To the right, the oppressed are necessarily weaker than the oppressors. Therefore, considering the oppressed to always be the correct side of a conflict is equivalent to considering the weaker party to always be the correct side of a conflict. In other words, weak makes right.
Others in this comment section have pointed out errors in this argument, so I won’t bother reiterating them here.
Just that thing where they can’t fathom how we think, so they just invert how they think and decide that must be it. They have a reflexive worship of power that compels them to always see the oppressor as correct? We must simply think the exact opposite, nothing more complicated than that.
To the right, the oppressed are necessarily weaker than the oppressors. Therefore, considering the oppressed to always be the correct side of a conflict is equivalent to considering the weaker party to always be the correct side of a conflict. In other words, weak makes right.
Others in this comment section have pointed out errors in this argument, so I won’t bother reiterating them here.
Just that thing where they can’t fathom how we think, so they just invert how they think and decide that must be it. They have a reflexive worship of power that compels them to always see the oppressor as correct? We must simply think the exact opposite, nothing more complicated than that.