Tbh, I'm not sure "it's ok to doubt" and "believe oppressed people about their oppression" are opposed. Doubt rarely stands purely alone, and usually a particular thing is doubted *because* something else is believed without question. https://twitter.com/an_edcentric/status/1346464599508475910

The act of doubting the existence of oppression is not primarily about the merits of the particular account, in which case the thing in question would be the criteria of "truth" and the specifics of the account. Unilateral doubt about an account of violence or oppression

until one experiences it themself is almost always not due to any failure to meet an objective burden of proof, but the affirmative belief in a world in which that sort of thing just doesn't happen. "It's ok to doubt" can be brought to speak productively on instances like these

once the focus is turned away from the juridical task of objectively determining a truth value of a particular isolated statement and towards the topic of those things which one believes about the world without question, and which tells them to doubt all that doesn't fit with it.

A refusal to believe the existence of oppression is nothing less than a refusal to doubt, an uncritical belief in a particular version of the world in which operations of power reflect to the eye and the mind a twisted and surreal "reality."

Thomas's doubt was only secondarily a doubting of Christ; it was first and foremost an unquestioned and reality-constituting belief in the ultimate power of the Roman Empire over life and death and the finality of earthly death.

"It's ok to doubt" and "try the spirits whether they be of God" further oppression if they are turned solely against the powerless, but contain radical potential when turned against the demonic and totalizing logics of white supremacy and the colonial system of gender.