Example:
Hym "Ok. Here's how I see it. If I am
oppressed I am reduced to two options. Accept my
oppression or use violence against my oppressors. But if you are in a "system of oppression" you can't just kill the
plantation owners because there is more than one plantation. So, once you have
liberated yourself from the immediate threat of your immediate subjugation, you are left with with the
LOOMING THREAT of future subjugation at the hands of people who don't have problem with or desire your oppression. The only way to combat this is to pre-empt this
looming threat with more killing. This is MADE NECESSARY by the impending retaliatory violence. Ok? So now all of the plantation owners are gone. And all you're left with are the people who sat
idly by while you were oppressed. Now, they are an unknown because you don't know whether or not they believe your subjugation was justified. At this point you may have even developed an appetite for violence. There is only one way to be certain that you won't be oppressed again. More killing"
Iam "So, this is how (in your estimation) one could draw the conclusion that the act of oppression or the perception of oppression or an oppression narrative would necessitate the use of violence in the name of self-preservation?"
Hym "Correct. The show 'Attack on Titan' takes this line of reasoning to it's logical conclusion. So, this isn't really an original thought. But
nobody asked me."