Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
-1=e^ipi

Microaggressions

Recommended Posts

Also, higher life expectancy, more job opportunities, more scholarships, less likely to commit suicide, less likely to be a victim of violent crimes (being a victim of assault suffering brain damage is not pleasant), less likely to be murdered, more funding for gender-specific cancers, greater chance of your emotional concerns being taken seriously, full control over my ability to reproduce, genital integrity as an infant, not subject to drafts in any western countries, etc.

More job opportunities - that's if you consider low paying jobs in retail, services and office admin as being 'more job opportunities'

Scholarships - More men than women receive athletic scholarships

Suicide - women only survive suicide more than men because they choose pills rather than guns or other more violent methods

Less likely to be murdered - women by far are more likely to be murdered by their male partner

Health research funding - Mental health research by women receives only 6.05% of all mental health research funds in Canada and only 0.42% of all health research funds.

Emotional concerns - Women tend to put their children and partner ahead of their own needs, but they also reach out to professionals for help more than men. Men should learn to ask for help.

full control to reproduce - in many countries not so much

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're taking your (alleged) personal experiences and projecting it on to entire groups, which is merely the mirror image of the behaviour you deride in "SJWs".

Has it also ever occurred to you that maybe the things you've experienced in your life weren't due to your gender? I've seen a lot of MRA-types who blame gender discrimination for their own personal choices and failings.

This is an anonymous internet forum. For all you know I am an 80 year old black jewish lesbian. I could be making everything up. Same with everyone else here. So it's best to stick to statistics rather than anecdotal evidence.

Yet you guys don't like statistics and can't deal with my arguments so instead start trying to infer that I have some hidden motive, am secretly a misogynistic conservative, or whatever in order to dismiss what I write. Then when i get annoyed and bring anecdotal evidence it's now 'oh now we can dismiss what you write because you are projecting'.

So if you are a male that disagrees with the mainstream narrative of 'women oppressed, men privileged' and you haven't faced difficulty in life, well then you are clearly privileged so what you say can be dismissed.

And if you are a male that disagrees with the mainstream narrative of 'women oppressed, men privileged' and you have faced difficulty in life, well then you are just projecting your difficulties so what you say can be dismissed.

And if you are a female that disagrees with the mainstream narrative of 'women oppressed, men privileged', well then you clearly have internalized misogyny so can be dismissed.

Seems like your beliefs are pretty dogmatic since you can dismiss any dissenting opinion on the basis of the race and sex of the person who disagrees with you.

Edited by -1=e^ipi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More job opportunities - that's if you consider low paying jobs in retail, services and office admin as being 'more job opportunities'

Or STEM http://www.pnas.org/content/112/17/5360.abstract

Or government, which favours women in hiring and is overrepresented with women

Or being a school teacher or babysitter since there is a stereotype of men with children being pedophiles

etc.

Do you think the unemployment gap between men and women, especially for younger people, is just a coincidence?

Scholarships - More men than women receive athletic scholarships

This doesn't counter the overall scholarship gap, which is why we see over 60% of university students being female today.

Suicide - women only survive suicide more than men because they choose pills rather than guns or other more violent methods

Maybe that's because women use it as a method to seek attention or emotional support so chose less effective methods. With men, there is far less emotional support in our society so there is very little reason to perform a suicide with a low rate of success.

Less likely to be murdered - women by far are more likely to be murdered by their male partner

Yes, because when women get murdered society cares more since society values women more than men. Same reason people care a lot more about girls being kidnapped or killed by Boko Haram than when the same thing happens to boys. Thank you for demonstrating this. Women having a higher rate of murder type X somehow dismisses the fact that men are far more likely to be murdered overall.

Health research funding - Mental health research by women receives only 6.05% of all mental health research funds in Canada and only 0.42% of all health research funds.

Source and relevance please.

Women tend to put their children and partner ahead of their own needs

Please provide evidence of this very strong claim. Is this why men work themselves to an early grave by working longer hours in more stressful jobs on average? In order to put their needs ahead of their own rather than support family members?

but they also reach out to professionals for help more than men. Men should learn to ask for help.

Way to reinforce traditionalism by putting 100% of the agency on men. What we see in society of men asking for help less is primarily due to all the gender conditioning that occurs in society. Men are told to 'man up', 'grow balls' and stop complaining especially because they are supposedly 'privileged'. They've done studies where they have found that mothers, when caring for infants, are far less likely to respond to a crying boy compared to a crying girl. Boys are conditioned from a young age that their concerns will not get responded to so they have to toughen up and be less emotional. This is what causes men asking for help less and is what should be addressed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an anonymous internet forum. For all you know I am an 80 year old black jewish lesbian. I could be making everything up. Same with everyone else here. So it's best to stick to statistics rather than anecdotal evidence.

Great. When will you start? Because cherry-picking certain measures to support a bigger narrative is just anecdotes with numbers. Doesn't tell us jack shit.

Yet you guys don't like statistics and can't deal with my arguments so instead start trying to infer that I have some hidden motive, am secretly a misogynistic conservative, or whatever in order to dismiss what I write. Then when i get annoyed and bring anecdotal evidence it's now 'oh now we can dismiss what you write because you are projecting'.

There's nothing really secret about your leanings.

So if you are a male that disagrees with the mainstream narrative of 'women oppressed, men privileged' and you haven't faced difficulty in life, well then you are clearly privileged so what you say can be dismissed.

No, but you can be said not to have a good understanding of the concept of X privilege.

And if you are a male that disagrees with the mainstream narrative of 'women oppressed, men privileged' and you have faced difficulty in life, well then you are just projecting your difficulties so what you say can be dismissed.
See above.
And if you are a female that disagrees with the mainstream narrative of 'women oppressed, men privileged', well then you clearly have internalized misogyny so can be dismissed.
Depends on the reasons for disagreeing. For some people, that reason is "hey this is a great way to make money off gullible virgins and divorced guys."
Seems like your beliefs are pretty dogmatic since you can dismiss any dissenting opinion on the basis of the race and sex of the person who disagrees with you.

Sadly no. A shit argument is a shit argument regardless of race or gender.

Edited by Black Dog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The central conceit of President Obama’s statement, that students need to learn the viewpoints of those that oppose and offend them, is troublesome as well. Why should racial and ethnic minorities have to listen to or read the words of people whose fundamental disagreement with them is not politics or economics, but the very fact that they exist? For many, the word “nigger” is a stark reminder of just that. What growth do women who have personally experienced the horrors of rape, abuse, or assault have to glean from stories about it or simulations of it? It seems to me that most of the “growth” in this case is for young white guys who haven’t been privy to these existential perils.

I'm pretty sure Obama was talking about economic and political disagreements. But even if it was about issues of race, so what? As long as violence isn't threatened people shouldn't be allowed to shut down others freedom of speech, it appears that's what this writer is advocating here.

We've seen it in Canada with the Pro-Life movement where Student Unions are outright hostile to students (of a variety of genders, faiths, and racial groups) who want to organize because they are seen as being on the wrong side of the debate.

Edited by Boges

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like a good read - thanks Cyber.

I do think that Campus politics is a source for the mainstream media outrage machine in the same way that smalltown/Texas wingnuts are. "News" needs outrage because it sells.

Whatever we discuss on MLW, it's not exactly "news".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure Obama was talking about economic and political disagreements. But even if it was about issues of race, so what? As long as violence isn't threatened people shouldn't be allowed to shut down others freedom of speech, it appears that's what this writer is advocating here.

So in your view, it's okay for people to spew offensive racist shit and the onus is on the people subject to it to, I guess, grow a thicker skin?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So in your view, it's okay for people to spew offensive racist shit and the onus is on the people subject to it to, I guess, grow a thicker skin?

I always thought people wanted to know who the racists were. I don't know what the instances of racism in University campuses are as opposed to people being shut down for having opposite opinions. If people are purposely abusive to other, I'm sure that's against existing University regulations.

But let's take the Bill Maher example that was mentioned. I'm sure racism was an objection to trying to get him banned from Berkley. He's critical of Fundamentalist Islam. So are people who are critical of Fundamentalist Islam immediately considered racist?

Then we get instances like this.

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/sep/26/student-union-blocks-speech-activist-maryam-namazie-warwick

A human rights campaigner has been barred from speaking at Warwick University after organisers were told she was “highly inflammatory and could incite hatred”.

Maryam Namazie, an Iranian-born campaigner against religious laws, had been invited to speak to the Warwick Atheists, Secularists and Humanists Society next month. But the student union blocked the event, telling the society that Namazie’s appearance could violate its external speaker policy.

In an email to the society’s president, Benjamin David, a student union official said the decision had been taken “because after researching both her [Namazie] and her organisation, a number of flags have been raised”.

Of course it's only an outlier right. :rolleyes:

Edited by Boges

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always thought people wanted to know who the racists were.

Yes, they are the one's saying racist shit.

I don't know what the instances of racism in University campuses are as opposed to people being shut down for having opposite opinions

But you're gonna make assumptions about the prevalence anyway?

But let's take the Bill Maher example that was mentioned. I'm sure racism was an objection to trying to get him banned from Berkley. He's critical of Fundamentalist Islam. So are people who are critical of Fundamentalist Islam immediately considered racist?
I'm starting to think you din't really get the point of the piece. No one is denying the existence of super politically correct types on campuses. the question is around the framing of this as an epidemic or widespread phenomenon based on a certain selection of high-profile anecdotes.

Of course it's only an outlier right. :rolleyes:

No it's an anecdote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, they are the one's saying racist shit.

Should racist speech be banned? And who gets to decide what's racist?

Is this racist? I think it is, but should Youtube ban it?

But you're gonna make assumptions about the prevalence anyway?

I'm starting to think you din't really get the point of the piece. No one is denying the existence of super politically correct types on campuses. the question is around the framing of this as an epidemic or widespread phenomenon based on a certain selection of high-profile anecdotes.

The writer dismisses high profile examples as not representative of the phenomena. Would you say that instances of cops shooting unarmed black youths is not representatives of a problem? I'm sure most cops today don't shoot black youths.

Edited by Boges

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should racist speech be banned? And who gets to decide what's racist?

Is this racist? I think it is, but should Youtube ban it?

I'm not really sure what your argument here is.

The writer dismisses high profile examples as not representative of the phenomena.

No, he's questioning the very existence of the phenomenon.

Would you say that instances of cops shooting unarmed black youths is not representatives of a problem? I'm sure most cops today don't shoot black youths.

"Representative" is the key word. Certain examples of cops shooting unarmed black folks have been seized upon as representative of a larger problem that has been well documented in other ways. Where as the small handful of stories of campus political correctness run amuck are being held up as evidence of some kind of epidemic (in which case you'd think there'd be more than the same five stories to choose from).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Representative" is the key word. Certain examples of cops shooting unarmed black folks have been seized upon as representative of a larger problem that has been well documented in other ways. Where as the small handful of stories of campus political correctness run amuck are being held up as evidence of some kind of epidemic (in which case you'd think there'd be more than the same five stories to choose from).

How many stories would be required?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many stories would be required?

Enough to show a consistent pattern across a wide variety of institutions. it's also important to differentiate between outraged individual students and policies of the institutions themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok so I read through this. Here are my thoughts.

1) Approximately the first half of the article is devoted to explaining that there are in fact relatively few examples of universities acting in the "PC" way that articles like "coddling" rail against, rather than a broad "rising tide". That is probably true, currently. Nonetheless, there are some examples... and what is relevant from my perspective as we debate the issue isn't whether it's already spread widely to most universities, but whether it's something that we should support or oppose. And the first part of the article does not address that point.

2) The next few paragraphs deal with trigger warnings and sexual assault on campus. Personally, I find nothing wrong with the idea that if a class is going to discuss something which may bring up associations with sexual assault that they warn students first in case they have been recently traumatized. That's no different than a teacher in a biology class providing a brief warning if they are about to show some gross photos. That's certainly fine but is not a defense of the idea of microaggressions and protecting people from offense.

3) The next few paragraphs make some unsubstantiated references to "overwhelming whiteness", people having a problem with the mere fact that other races "exist", and "privilege". This is all largely nonsense and not worth addressing.

4) Next, he says that many people are for the first time having agency over their lives including what "they let in". That's all fine and good, let in only what you like, but that doesn't mean you have to be shielded from any speech that might offend you. If you hear statements that you find offensive, exercise your agency and "don't let it in" rather than complaining that such statements should never be made.

5) Next, he tries to link the idea that PC culture is resurging to the trashing of millenials. He does not provide anything to substantiate this linkage though and I don't think articles like "Coddling" which he is attempting to refute make that linkage either.

In short, I don't think he's done anything to defend the idea that things like "education about microaggressions" should be done on university campuses. Rather, he has only stated that it's not happening in many places yet and that therefore those who warn against it have no reason (yet) to panic. And then he talks about a bunch of stuff that's kind of off topic and/or unsubstantiated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as violence isn't threatened people shouldn't be allowed to shut down others freedom of speech, it appears that's what this writer is advocating here.

Does the relevant XKCD comic need to be posted again?

free_speech.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should racist speech be banned? And who gets to decide what's racist?

If I'm to believe posters like you and Euler, then the people saying racist garbage should be the ones to decide whether or not it's racist, as opposed to the people experiencing the racism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In short, I don't think he's done anything to defend the idea that things like "education about microaggressions" should be done on university campuses. Rather, he has only stated that it's not happening in many places yet and that therefore those who warn against it have no reason (yet) to panic.

Well, you're right about one thing. The author didn't make the argument you expected. Maybe go back and read it again, knowing now that the point he's making is that this "PC run amok on campuses" idea is nothing more than a false narrative. Maybe then you'll ask yourself why this false narrative is being created and rammed down people's throats.

Edited by cybercoma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I'm to believe posters like you and Euler, then the people saying racist garbage should be the ones to decide whether or not it's racist, as opposed to the people experiencing the racism.

I never said that. Consequences are always a consideration of someone's speech. But in the examples given, it can hardly be considered racist if a person speaking out against Sharia Law for an example.

Or Here's Canadian example.

http://www.macleans.ca/education/university/shouting-racist-in-a-crowded-university/

An author writes a book about a community being held hostage by a First Nations community and is banned from speaking at a University?

It seems accusations of racism are being used to stifle debate. And that's what I'm opposing. And who cares if it's widespread or not, it's wrong whenever it happens.

Edited by Boges

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems accusations of racism are being used to stifle debate. And that's what I'm opposing. And who cares if it's widespread or not, it's wrong whenever it happens.

Because these disparate incidents are being used to create a narrative about an overall trend. That's literally the entire premise of that Atlantic article.

A movement is arising, undirected and driven largely by students, to scrub campuses clean of words, ideas, and subjects that might cause discomfort or give offense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because these disparate incidents are being used to create a narrative about an overall trend. That's literally the entire premise of that Atlantic article.

And not only that, but it's being used to attack people who've experienced discrimination and oppression, which is about as low as you can get.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, you're right about one thing. The author didn't make the argument you expected. Maybe go back and read it again, knowing now that the point he's making is that this "PC run amok on campuses" idea is nothing more than a false narrative. Maybe then you'll ask yourself why this false narrative is being created and rammed down people's throats.

The fact that "PC run amok on campuses" is not necessarily valid as a nationwide narrative doesn't mean that one cannot point out and criticize those particular instances where we do see "PC run amok".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...