kimmy

So the nerds of Anonymous have apparently taken down over 5000 Twitter accounts belonging to ISIS members and sympathizers. -k

Russia has just conducted a bombing raid of historic proportions against ISIS. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/11/17/russia-pounds-isis-with-biggest-bomber-raid-in-decades.html -k

I realize that many of you felt that it had jumped the shark from day one. However, I was kind of on board when I thought it was about confronting the callous use of excessive force by the police. But now it is apparently about storming libraries and harrassing white students who are trying to study, and I can't be sympathetic anymore. http://coed.com/2015/11/16/dartmouth-college-black-lives-matter-protest-violence-video-details/ Like with the Occupy protests, it seems to have changed from something that started out with a specific message and devolved into a magnet for angry people who want to vent. -k

Why do they need to be permanent? Why can't they return home once the fighting is over? You know, rebuild their country? -k

Asked about her cozy relationship with Wall Street, Hilary invokes 9/11. Cheeeee. -k

And does he know that a real passport is no guarantee that the person isn't also with ISIS? -k

That kick to the jaw was the coup de grace, but the fight was over a long time before that. It was over when Ronda showed up at the arena with no plan for dealing with an elite boxer who had the mobility and footwork to evade Ronda's bull-rush tactics. It was over when Ronda got the idea that she could beat an elite boxer at boxing. By the time that kick landed, Ronda was exhausted and beat up, and stumbling, and not holding her hands up to protect her head. She'd just eaten a hard punch to the jaw, and was woozy and staggered, and Holm was lining her up for that kick even as Ronda was getting back to her feet. It wasn't one kick, it was the accumulated effects of 6 minutes of punishment that led to that moment. It wasn't a problem of Ronda not having experience against left-handed fighters. It was a problem of Ronda not being experienced at getting punched in the face, not being experienced at boxing, not being experienced at fighting somebody who has the speed and footwork to avoid getting clinched... I think Ronda's coach is a problem. Holm works with the smartest strategists in MMA, and Ronda works with a goof. -k

Maybe instead of bringing the Syrians to live in Canada, we should devote our resources to providing safe and livable conditions at the refugee camps in the area. -k

One of the biggest upsets in MMA, if not all of sports, in several years last night as Holly Holm defeated Ronda Rousey to win the UFC women's 135 pound title. Rousey had defeated all of her previous opponents so easily that it seemed like she was unstoppable and might never lose. Few of her opponents lasted more than a minute against her, and only one had lasted a full round. But Holly Holm didn't just beat Rousey, she dominated her in an extremely lopsided fight. Ronda just plain got beat up, whipped, completely outclassed, and pretty much humiliated. -k

I don't particularly object to participating in air strikes against ISIS, though I feel it's probably not very effective. What I wonder about is what other things could be done to fight them. Particularly, they seem to be very well funded and well supplied. I have read that they're raising money by smuggling oil out of territories that they control. Maybe oil infrastructure in ISIS territories should be destroyed. I read that they're receiving large financial donations from wealthy citizens in Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Maybe wealthy Saudis and Qataris who send money to ISIS should start turning up dead. -k

Is it such a bad thing if al-Assad takes back Syria? I gather that he's not a particularly cool dude, but at least he wasn't attacking Paris or blowing up airplanes. Maybe we should just pick up the phone and tell Mr Putin "Ok, you win. You go in there, do your thing, prop up your puppet dictator." I personally don't see Canada's 6 crappy jets as being a significant factor in the fight against ISIS either way. If there's a NATO response then we need to honor our obligations, but let's not pretend that our crummy little contribution in Syria is anything more than symbolic. If Trudeau backtracks on a campaign promise, I hope the one he breaks is the promise to bring in 25000 Syrians in the next 2 months. -k

It's not necessarily a do-nothing position. The US Congress has a House Science Committee. It's not inherently unreasonable that there be a Ministry of Science in Canada. I recall that in the past we've had similar notions folded in with the Industry portfolio. I'd just like to understand what this person will actually be doing. -k

The premise here is not that people need to be taught how to be courteous. The assumption-- perhaps it is naive-- is that people will choose to be courteous. The premise here is that there are things that people perceive as discourteous, but many people don't realize it's discourteous because they don't understand the reason why others perceive it as such. For example: somebody probably taught you that it's impolite to ask a woman her weight or her age. "How old are you?" and "How much do you weigh?" are perfectly reasonable questions... but many women consider their weight and age to be sensitive topics. Most people raised in our culture understand talking about a woman's weight or age is a poor choice of topic if you're trying to have a positive conversation. A few posts back Hal9000 mentioned offering a black person watermelon and fried chicken as a rude and bigoted comment. Why? What's wrong with it? Lots of people like watermelon. Lots of people like fried chicken? What's offensive about offering a black person watermelon and fried chicken? Well, what's wrong with it is that it is a deliberate reference to a hateful caricature of black people from years gone by. Chances are pretty good that even if you don't know the history behind it, you still know that it's a major breech of civility to ask a black person if they want some fried chicken and watermelon. There's context involved that makes these innocent questions turn into something that will probably turn your conversation in a negative direction. And you're probably glad that you're aware of the context when you interact with people, because having that knowledge helps you avoid making missteps that will cause people to think you're a real jerk. And the idea with the educational brochure that launched this thread isn't to tell people to be nice, it's to provide information about things that you might say to irritate people without realizing it. "Where are you from?" is an example that was discussed earlier in the thread. I always felt like it was a harmless question, because if somebody asks me where I'm from I assume they're wondering if I'm from Edmonton or Calgary or Vancouver. But if you're not white, you've probably been asked that question by somebody who actually wants to know whether you're an immigrant, or by somebody who wants to know whether your ancestry is Chinese or Korean, or so-on. It can make people feel like foreigners. I never had any malice when I asked that question, but I discovered that by asking it I was unwittingly associating myself with unpleasant experiences people have had. So I quit asking that. I certainly agree with that, but as I keep pointing out in this thread, nobody is talking about banning anything. A university provided some information to its employees about interacting with non-white students in a way that might help them avoid missteps. Just as your mom gave you the information to avoid irritating women by asking about their age and weight. -k

I dunno about you guys, but my initial reaction to the Starbucks "red cup" controversy: ...was this: -k

One of the points I have been trying to emphasize is that the term "microaggression" isn't intended to describe every situation where somebody's feelings get hurt, it's intended to describe inadvertent, unintended insult. And it was never intended to describe dialog over controversial ideas, either. A discussion of affirmative action in a classroom setting isn't microaggression, but expressing your disagreement with affirmative action shortly after meeting your new black co-worker might be microaggression (or more likely, it's just a passive-aggressive thing to do) because chances are fair that they're going to interpret the remark as being a reference to their qualifications. So to answer your question: it depends on the context. If you're in a classroom or you're reading an article or you're in a discussion here at the MLW and somebody mentions "white privilege" and you shout out HEEEEYYY! This is microaggression! No, you'd be wrong. It was never intended to describe a situation like that. On the other hand, there might be a situation where yes, it really could fit the definition. One time I was at a fast food outfit and there was a black person just standing there studying the menu. I figured she hadn't made up her mind yet. I stepped up to the cashier to make an order, at which point the black person says "hey, you don't get to go first just cuz you're white!" (although, that probably wasn't "microaggression", it was probably just aggression.) It seemed like an unfair accusation, given the circumstances. Maybe you can come up with a situation where somebody talking about "white privilege" could be an unintended insult. Perhaps you're explaining how you built your business, and somebody says "gee, white privilege must be nice." They've discounted all the work you've done and implied it was just handed to you because you're white. I think that could be described as microaggression (but it's more likely that the insult isn't unintended and that the person who said it is being a passive-aggressive jerk.) My suspicion is that you're right, because the official definition seems to limit the terms to race and gender. As I've mentioned several times already, that's my objection to the term as it's being applied. I do object to the term "coddled" though. Are you "coddling" people by not remarking on their weight when you're out and about? Do you owe it to fatties to toughen them up by making rude remarks about their weight? Do you choose not to do that because you're trying to "coddle" people, or do you choose not to do that because you don't want to be perceived as a jerk? -k

So Ben Carson might have some wacky ideas about pyramids, but at least he had the sense to pull out of the "religious freedom" conference hosted by pastor Kevin Swanson. Mike Huckabee, Ted Cruz, and Bobby Jindal weren't as smart. Kevin Swanson is (as some of us already knew, and anybody with a smartphone and 30 spare seconds could have found out) a raving crazy-person who wants gay people to be executed. Literally. He has advocated for this many times, and did so again at his conference this weekend. Huckabee, Cruz, and Jindal are falling badly behind in the Republican primaries. Does teaming up with a guy who wants gay people to be execute hurt them, or help them? -k

What you call it isn't really the point. They've put a name on an experience that probably everybody can relate to in some respect or another. I doubt that most people who experience these sorts of minor slights refer to them as "microaggression" either. I've only known the term "microaggression" for a couple of months, but I've known the experience of "they talked to me like I was an idiot" all my life. Calling it a "microaggression" doesn't make it more serious or more significant. It's the same as it has always been, a minor annoyance. It's not a big deal (hence the name "micro"...) but for people who have to deal with these kinds of things more often than us, I would imagine that it sometimes feels like being bitten to death by ducks. Of course. As I said earlier... these aren't the kinds of things that people fly off the handle over. They're minor annoyances that people live with and complain about when they get home. And providing information like the brochure that launched this thread isn't intended to turn a minor annoyance into a major incident, or to create an actionable code of behavior, or to provide me a way to launch a human rights class action lawsuit against the Best Buy Nerd-Herders. The intention is to provide the college staff or the Nerd Herd with information that might help them avoid common pitfalls that inadvertently make people annoyed at them. I keep getting the impression that if Best Buy published a brochure (or an infographic?) for its sales staff that said "Hint: Don't talk to the blonde girl and the old man as if they're stupid!" (or emoticons to that effect?) that some of the folks here would fly of the handle. "DEAR GOD politically correct indoctrination at Best Buy!" "OMG those Nerd-Herders are being oppressed their free speech is being taken away GOD DAMN IT this is so ORWELLIAN" "THIS IS SO PATHETIC that blonde girl and old guy are getting mad about this MY GOD if people can't deal with this minor stuff how are they going to deal with PUTIN whats next are they going to throw the Nerd Herd in JAIL if they say the wrong thing???" No, nobody is going to throw the Nerd Herd in jail. The point is to help the Nerd Herd interact with their customers better, not protect the blonde girl and the old man. -k

Indeed. He is free to talk, and others are free to weigh the merits of what he says. And for he and his supporters to pout that people who are exercising their half of that equation, and blame it on racism or bias, is decidedly weak and unpresidential. To paraphrase a current conservative meme that's going around: how's he going to face Putin if he can't even deal with people making fun of his stupid theory about the pyramids? -k

wellll, I guess it is pretty funny. -k

After what BC-Chick or myself posted, why would you think that? I think we were both pretty clear that these aren't incidents where you fly off the handle and yell at people, these are incidents where you bite your tongue, form a worse opinion of the person you're interacting with, and carry on with your day. Like, a salesman talks down to me like I'm an idiot, I'm not "looking to be offended", I'm just offended. ...and I'm sure the salesman isn't deliberately trying to offend me. Why would he hurt his chances of getting a commission? But if he's talking to me like I'm an idiot, then he's letting me know he assumes I'm an idiot, and I'm not very happy about it regardless of what he intended. It makes me less likely to buy his stuff and give him his commission. -k

Asking a black person whether they'd like to join you for fried chicken and watermelon is only offensive because you understand that there's a social context there that changes what would be an innocent question into something rude and bigoted. Without the context, it's a completely innocent question. The idea here is that there are other situations where there's also a social context that changes innocent questions into something that are rude to varying degrees. Being aware of the context, I'm assuming you opt not to invite black people to join you for fried chicken and watermelon, yes? Do you feel your freedom of speech has been taken away? Does this kind of self-censorship burn you inside? Does your heart ache to just once invite a black person for fried chicken and watermelon? Do you find yourself saying "damnit, I am going to ask a black person to join me for fried chicken and watermelon, and it's a perfectly reasonable question, and if they react negatively it's their fault for being unreasonable!" Most of us, given the information, choose to interact in a positive way with people, don't we? Does giving you more information ever actually hurt you? I mean, if worse comes to worst, you can still choose to be rude and inconsiderate if you wish. -k

I don't think anybody is talking about reporting anybody for anything. This was intended as constructive advice, not a list of punishable offenses. It depends greatly on context. I would think that offering to help someone who is obviously struggling would be welcomed in most circumstances. On the other hand, telling your friend "Step back, little bro! I'll take that, it's too heavy for you" is probably going to hurt his feelings, especially if his girlfriend is watching. And again, you can do whatever the hell you want, but I'd think that most people would want to consider the other party's feelings... especially if the other party is a friend or a prospective client. -k

That's been my objection to this concept... it's "official" definition seems to specify it relating to race and gender... but to me it seems like it could be applicable to many situations. I've mentioned my own experience of being talked down to by sales-people, for example. At a furniture-moving party, if a physically smaller man were told to step back and let somebody stronger deal with the heavy stuff, I would imagine that would be an emasculating experience for him, and to me would be a good example of the kind of thing we're talking about here. -k

It's not a matter of "tell it like it isn't", it's a question of courtesy. When you meet a fat person when you're out and about, do you stroll up to them and say "hey, fatty, you sure are fat!" I'm guessing you probably don't, unless you're an asshole or have some kind of mental disability. And that's not a question of "not telling it like it is", it's just a question of courtesy. They know they're fat, they don't need you to tell them they're fat, and nothing is really going to be accomplished by you telling them they're fat, other than they feel bad and you make them mad at you. If you see a non-white person, do you stroll up to them and say "hey, did you just get off the boat? How long have you been in this country? Do you even speak english?" Again, I'm guessing you probably don't, because you understand that only a real dick would act like that. And the idea with "microaggressions" is that there are things that offend people that you might not realize are likely to cause offense. For example, asking somebody "where are you from?" seems like a harmless enough question, but if you're non-white it carries a different connotation. If you're non-white and you reply "I'm from Burnaby", you've probably been asked "no, I mean, like, are you from Hong Kong?" and the question has a completely different connotation. They feel like you see them as a foreigner. You might have perfectly innocent intentions, but because of their experiences, the question "where are you from?" carries baggage for them that it wouldn't for a white person. Some here have completely reject that-- "that's a legitimate question and I'm going to ask it and I don't care if you're offended and if you're offended then you're stupid and I don't care anyway!" but I-- perhaps naively-- believe that most people would, given the information, would choose to interact with people in a way that improves the chances of the interaction being positive. This thread was launched to criticize an informational brochure sent around by the University of California to their staff. Cybercoma posted a link to the actual document on the first page of this thread, and you can read it for yourself to see whether it's an "Orwellian oppression of speech" or whether it's advice for university staff on avoiding some common pitfalls in interacting with students. If you're a professor, and it's the end of the term and you got back a bunch of student evaluations that said things like "this guy is a bigoted asshole" and you had no idea why, wouldn't you want all the information you could get to figure out how to improve things next semester? -k

Oh? When did that happen? -k