Thank you, Saianna, for your analysis.
However, I think you jumped the gun a little too quick, utilizing false language that confuses me and contradicts what I'm taking as the thesis.
Saianna
the majority has double-thought itself into a corner by forcing upon themselves the lie that an act taken by a member of the majority against a member of the minorty (ethnic, political, gender, etc.) is somehow an act of oppression
Paradoxical as written. I assume you meant that any negative action is automatically considered an act of oppression?
Second, your hypothetical example involving the attack dead ends. Consider contemporary social standards surrounding hate crimes, especially white on black crimes. If one of your white friends attacked a black person claiming it was not out of hate, wouldn't you believe them? I am certain most white people would, even more so if there was an investigation of hate-base and it was finalized as false. Where does the stigma come in if your determination isn't tarnished?
Saianna
it comes out of the seeming belief that the majority is some homogenous hivemind, unable to disagree with itself and therefore only capable of great abuses of power, and therefore "deserving" of hate
I argue that only those holding the power have a capacity to abuse it. You fail to develop the link between a body abusing power and being "deserving" of hate, especially in the general.