#and as an aside can we talk about how “infantilised” is allowed but “adultified” is spellchecked...

[onehundredgar]

The term "oppression olympics" is so confusing to me. First of all, it's used as a derogatory term as far as I'm aware— but what the term dismisses is reality. Some people are more oppressed than others. Significantly so. Those sufferings can be compared, and one will come out worse.

You can say this isn't the case for localised situations; e.g. Person A, a white immigrant kid in a predominantly POC country, is seen as an outsider, just like Person B, a POC immigrant kid in a predominantly white country. But oppression must never be evaluated through a localised lens— Person A is not affected in any way to same degree as Person B. They are idealised and infantilised, whereas Person B is demeaned and adultified. Their experiences are comparable and Person B's is quantifiably more harmful.

The oppression olympics aren't a real competition and people are not winning/losing. The people who are "winning" do not have the time or energy to be seeing it that way. They are busy surviving.

Those who do see it that way are people who have enough privilege to feel threatened by their perceived "loss" of the olympics.

TL;DR: "Oppression olympics" was an unusable term from the start because it implies the people who undeniably are more oppressed are somehow benefiting from their suffering.