The simplest means is to deny that the means are aggressive. Deny the discrimination, claim responses are justified, dehumanise the group, reject any peaceful protestor as a disrespectful "son of a bitch" (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2017/09/22...), nonpeaceful resistance "thugs" (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-minneapolis-protesters-th...) even where that represents a small minority, agents provocateurs, or responses to violence or entrapment.

Restrict access to institutions of power such as legislatures, the church, banks and financial institutions, civil service, the military, lower or higher education, business, the ballot box.

Use selection criteria which are impersonal but demonstrably discriminate against the class.

Locate polluting industry in neighbourhoods inhabited by the group. Especially contaminants (lead, mercury, asbestos, etc.) with long term cognitive and behavioural health effects.

Encourage (and prosecute) drugs trade and use in the group's ccommunities. Differentiate in prosecution and sentencing between "their" and "our" drugs.

Establish wholly separate "segregation schools" for the privileged group. Ensure that the privileged poor have scholarship access, but the disenfranchised group does not.

Create exclusions based on redlining, restrictive covenants, actuarial risk, AI, or other mechanisms reducing access to assets, insurance, business financing, and other opportunity-enhancing resources, often "objective" and "based in data".

I don't understand, can you clarify?

How can you non-aggressively disenfranchise a group of people? Further, how can you maintain non-aggression if the group you are attempting to disenfranchise resists your attempts to disenfranchise them (which would make clear that your attempt to do so is counter to their wishes, and thus aggressive).

If you try to do something to someone, and they tell you to stop or try to get you to stop, continuing to do the thing is an act of aggression.

Ah, got it. Point taken. I believe what you say is true, but I think the aggression can often be so obscured as to not be visible. Systematically hiring 10% less people of of color, or passing over a resume with a funny sounding name isn't overtly aggressive, but over the course of centuries it becomes quite oppressive. Combine a nuanced action like that with a thousand other nuanced behaviors and you end up with a group of people who are disenfranchised, yet any specific claim they make sounds trite, any specific protest they makes seems out of line with an individual nuanced behavior.

That makes a lot of sense. If each (and every) of the actions is nuanced, I can see a group being oppressed without violence and possibly even without aggression if the oppressors believe they are helping the oppressed with their policies. Though of course the nature of the actions is such that there is plausible deniability should motive come into question. Goodness.

This is one lovely comment thread were two people learned something (ok, at least three -I learned something as well), instead of fighting with words.

Thanks people, I had a rough day on HN today and you put a smime on my face :-)