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

Microaggressions

Recommended Posts

....but that makes me aggressive against "visible minorities" (a politically correct term for "non-whites).

Maybe....the UN says that the term is racist as well. "Whites" are not the benchmark for humankind.

Edited by bush_cheney2004

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Microaggressions show the way discrimination is built into society. That it's so intrinsic that people isolate and create hierarchies without even thinking about it.

I agree with this in some micro-aggression examples. But a lot of examples are simply ridiculous IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really. Ok I'll play along: Last month I was declined from renting housing because I wasn't the same ethnicity/race as the owners.

Btw, it's also "microagression" for you to assume I've never had to deal with "micro-aggression" because I'm a male, and you probably assume myself and people like Bonam are white. Stop being so sexist and racist! B)

Suck it up stop being such a whiner etc etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cause if someone is offended by tiny unintentional statements that are part of everyday use, they should toughen up and grow a thicker skin rather than expecting everyone else to change.

Except it goes further than that. Saying that 'the most qualified person should get the job' or 'race shouldn't matter' is a micro aggression. Denial of someone's claim of racism is a form of micro-aggression. Not believing someone's claims of being micro-aggressioned is micro aggression.

These SJWs want to criminalize people that disagree with their SJW ideology. And it's reached critical mass in most universities. Even if 90% of the people in power in a university are reasonable, the 10% will discriminate against anyone that doesn't accept or at least pretend to accept their ideology so SJW types will have an advantage in being hired, published, promoted, tenured, etc. Over time this means more SJW types in power, which results in more discrimination and so on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know this how?

Because the SJW dogma says so. Reason, empirical evidence, consistency or falsifiability don't matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Suck it up stop being such a whiner etc etc

Anyone should be free to whine or disagree with anything I think or say, and I can do the same to others. That's my point. People shouldn't be FORCED (via be fired or denied promotion etc.) to censor their own speech ANY TIME it is deemed some kind of racially/ethnically etc. offensive comment. Some "micro-aggression" examples I agree are wrong and I personally don't think it's appropriate for employees or others to be saying these things, but others listed by UCLA are IMO are not even discriminatory at all. Ie: "Where were you born?". What's wrong with that? I'm genuinely interested in people of different cultural backgrounds than me and learning about different cultures and countries, so when I meet someone with a foreign accent sometimes I ask them what country they were born so I can learn things. If someone is offended by that well-intentioned comment then fine you have a right to think/feel whatever you want, but I'm not going to stop asking that question to others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These SJWs want to criminalize people that disagree with their SJW ideology.

Yes, it really comes down to censorship of speech.

Btw I'd also be considered a "SJW", I think most people are for social justice, they just disagree on the definition of "justice" in society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone should be free to whine or disagree with anything I think or say, and I can do the same to others. That's my point. People shouldn't be FORCED (via be fired or denied promotion etc.) to censor their own speech ANY TIME it is deemed some kind of racially/ethnically etc. offensive comment.

Would that include racial slurs or sexist jokes?

Some "micro-aggression" examples I agree are wrong and I personally don't think it's appropriate for employees or others to be saying these things, but others listed by UCLA are IMO are not even discriminatory at all.

So you agree there's a line, you just have a different idea of where to draw it.

Ie: "Where were you born?". What's wrong with that? I'm genuinely interested in people of different cultural backgrounds than me and learning about different cultures and countries, so when I meet someone with a foreign accent sometimes I ask them what country they were born so I can learn things. If someone is offended by that well-intentioned comment then fine you have a right to think/feel whatever you want, but I'm not going to stop asking that question to others.

Some people with "foreign" accents may have been born here. There's a degree of presumptuousness when you ask that question that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you think people of colour, women, LGBTIQ people, people with disabilities, etc. who bring attention to micro-aggressions never faced overt discrimination?

I'm deeply offended that you used the acronym LGBTIQ instead of LGBTQIA! Clearly this is a micro-aggression against A people since you are dismissing their experiences or dismissing their existence!

Edit: Above comment contains sarcasm. It's fun to use the SJW ideology against it's own adherents.

Edited by -1=e^ipi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All that sounds really shitty. But why do you feel what happend to you invalidates anyone else's experiences?

It doesn't invalidate them. Their experiences happened, sure. They're just nothing to worry or complain about. Don't sweat the small stuff and get on with life. There's much bigger problems out there.

Edited by Bonam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't invalidate them. Their experiences happened, sure. They're just nothing to worry or complain about. Don't sweat the small stuff and get on with life. There's much bigger problems out there.

And far more insidious are those who would enlist the experiences of others as ammunition in a their own "social justice" agenda. More "victims" are great for the cause, but not for the "victims".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Btw I'd also be considered a "SJW", I think most people are for social justice, they just disagree on the definition of "justice" in society.

Social Justice is an Orwellian lie. Nearly everyone supports justice, they just have different understandings of what justice is. Terms like social justice have an implication that those that disagree with it are against justice. So rather than try to justify 'social justice' on its own merits, SJWs just play Orwellian word association games to associate justice with their position and injustice with the opposing position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being rude to white people is called just being rude. Microaggressions are rudeness/cluelessness tinged with racism.

Being an A-hole, to use your expression, is being an A-hole, regardless of your motivation or who you're being nasty to. Since being nasty doesn't bother you when you think you're dealing with White people, why would it bother you in dealing with non-white people?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be far more afraid of offending a white person, based on this thread alone.

Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Social Justice is an Orwellian lie. Nearly everyone supports justice, they just have different understandings of what justice is. Terms like social justice have an implication that those that disagree with it are against justice. So rather than try to justify 'social justice' on its own merits, SJWs just play Orwellian word association games to associate justice with their position and injustice with the opposing position.

Like I've said, half the industry of the social justice movement is messing with language. The other half is scapegoating white males for every possible problem.

It's probably the most dangerous "philosophy" to come around since the death of Communism and Fascism. Like those, it comes conveniently packaged with a segment of people to be hated and blamed for everything. Like those, it promises a Utopian society once the hated class has been properly eliminated/subjugated/"re-educated". Like those, it uses insidious changes to language and propaganda to achieve its ends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because, based on my experience here, they're hyper-sensitive. Please don't get upset.

Are they hyper sensitive enough to cut your head off because you insult their prophet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are they hyper sensitive enough to cut your head off because you insult their prophet?

No, there's always crazy people. The response from the normals is what you need to worry about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because, based on my experience here, they're hyper-sensitive. Please don't get upset.

It is not clear what your point is. The op is about a US university telling professors that they will be judged based on ridiculous and unpredictable standards set by the PC morality police yet people who complaining about such arbitrary standards are 'hyper-sensitive'? Seems to me such a label only applies to people asking that others censor themselves - not to people arguing that there should be no need for censorship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems to me such a label only applies to people asking that others censor themselves - not to people arguing that there should be no need for censorship.

It's all about extreme sensitivity. Both the edict and the over-the-top response. Just my opinion though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't invalidate them. Their experiences happened, sure. They're just nothing to worry or complain about. Don't sweat the small stuff and get on with life. There's much bigger problems out there.

Yeah, no you completely invalidate them by saying they don't matter because other people have it worse.

Like I've said, half the industry of the social justice movement is messing with language. The other half is scapegoating white males for every possible problem.

It's probably the most dangerous "philosophy" to come around since the death of Communism and Fascism. Like those, it comes conveniently packaged with a segment of people to be hated and blamed for everything. Like those, it promises a Utopian society once the hated class has been properly eliminated/subjugated/"re-educated". Like those, it uses insidious changes to language and propaganda to achieve its ends.

Oh give me a break. You just described pretty much every single political philosophy/religious belief system.

Edited by Black Dog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too bad so sad for them. Oh noes, other people have it worse than me, I feel so invalidated!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being an A-hole, to use your expression, is being an A-hole, regardless of your motivation or who you're being nasty to. Since being nasty doesn't bother you when you think you're dealing with White people, why would it bother you in dealing with non-white people?

Again, slower this time: being an jerk to someone because you're a jerk (or that person had it coming) is one thing. Being a jerk to someone because they are non-white is another.

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...