Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

So the University of California in Berkeley recently implemented a policy of trying to educate people about 'micro-aggressions' in order to prevent people from doing 'micro-aggressions'. The implication is that those who do perform 'micro-aggressions' may suffer disciplinary such be fired, not get promotions, not get tenure, etc.

What are micro-aggressions? Well apparently saying things like 'I believe that the most qualified person should get the job' or 'America is a melting pot' is a racist and sexist statement that means that you hate women, sexual minorities and people of other races and your statement is creating a hostile environment and is meant to chip away at the sense of worth of others. The creation of such a hostile work environment is viewed as legally actionable by UC and the US federal government.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/06/16/uc-teaching-faculty-members-not-to-criticize-race-based-affirmative-action-call-america-melting-pot-and-more/
http://www.ucop.edu/academic-personnel-programs/_files/seminars/Tool_Recognizing_Microaggressions.pdf
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2015/jun/19/university-california-microaggression-faculty/


Edited by -1=e^ipi
  • Replies 753
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

This is the natural progression in our obsession with equality and fairness. And once we accomplish this the next step gets even more ridiculous.

Posted

It's an attempt to exert thought control and forced morality in the workplace, it seems. The university does deny what is contained in the first article though, so it seems to be trumped up at least.

Aggressive behaviour in the workplace is not necessarily described by the content of the message- you can make anti-male or anti-white comments too.

Posted

Oh, and don't forget gay rights michael, one can make anti-gay comments too. I may support this micro-aggression focus, surely everyone should be free of this at school or workplace.

Posted

The very least you could do is provide a link to the Wiki article on microaggression theory, so that people could read for themselves what it does and does not say, rather than take your biased anti social justice strawman as the definition:

Here's the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microaggression_theory

Here is the tool that the university uses to help people identify microaggressive terminology:

http://www.ucop.edu/academic-personnel-programs/_files/seminars/Tool_Recognizing_Microaggressions.pdf

People with privilege don't realize how women, people of colour, and people with disabilities experience the world and how everyday words and phrases can create an atmosphere that treats them as less than the privileged, even when unintentional.

But hey, why should you have to think about others and how they might experience discrimination/racism/sexism?

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions." --Thomas Jefferson

Posted

That's a different issue. It's not cut and dried, but some statements are hostile and some aren't. It's just hard to write rules around that.

Well, it's a good thing they're not called "microhostilities" then. Perhaps you want to read up on what microaggression theory means before being so dismissive?

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions." --Thomas Jefferson

Posted

But hey, why should you have to think about others and how they might experience discrimination/racism/sexism?

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.

There is no right to never encounter anything one might find offensive.

People need to grow up.

Posted

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.

There is no right to never encounter anything one might find offensive.

What's wrong with just not being an a-hole and thinking about what you say?

People need to grow up.

I agree. It's pretty childish to go around thinking you can just say whatever you want to whomever without any consequences.

"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit

Posted

What's wrong with just not being an a-hole and thinking about what you say?

Would it startle you if one suggested most of your posts here would violate their 'micro aggression' description?

"A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley

Posted

I wasn't aware that there was any such theory. For that matter, shouldn't the content of the university memo cover everything one would need to know ?

The laughable thing is that the very post to which you responded would easily violate the 'micro aggression' policy, as would virtually everything he ever writes here.

"A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley

Posted

Would it startle you if one suggested most of your posts here would violate their 'micro aggression' description?

Yes because it wouldn't be true.

"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit

Posted

What's wrong with just not being an a-hole and thinking about what you say?

I feel micro-aggressed by this comment. You fall into a higher privilege segment of society than I do (I'm an immigrant). Therefore, you should end up in front of a human rights council, I'm pretty sure.

Posted (edited)

The laughable thing is that the very post to which you responded would easily violate the 'micro aggression' policy, as would virtually everything he ever writes here.

You're betraying your ignorance of what this term encompasses (hint: it's not about being rude).

Edited by Black Dog

"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit

Posted

I feel micro-aggressed by this comment. You fall into a higher privilege segment of society than I do (I'm an immigrant). Therefore, you should end up in front of a human rights council, I'm pretty sure.

So you don't understand it either, then? Cool.

"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit

Posted (edited)

Nothing there to understand!

Just some busybodies making up terms so they can inconvenience/prosecute others while feeling all holier-than-thou about themselves.

Edited by Bonam
Posted

Nothing there to understand!

Just some busybodies making up terms so they can inconvenience/prosecute others while feeling all holier-than-thou about themselves.

So that's a yes.

"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit

Posted

You're betraying your ignorance of what this term encompasses (hint: it's not about being rude).

Sure it is! Only it's strictly reserved for being rude to 'people of colour'. There's no problem with being rude to White people!

"A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley

Posted

"Micro-aggressions"? :lol:

Nobody should be silencing people, especially professors, on their particular views on issues like immigration or affirmative action. Free speech for micro-aggressions!

People are too easily offended these days. If you're offended by un-politically-correct views like "micro-aggressions", just deal with it.

"All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain

Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.

Posted

Sure it is! Only it's strictly reserved for being rude to 'people of colour'. There's no problem with being rude to White people!

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

"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit

Posted

"Micro-aggressions"? :lol:

Nobody should be silencing people, especially professors, on their particular views on issues like immigration or affirmative action. Free speech for micro-aggressions!

People are too easily offended these days. If you're offended by un-politically-correct views like "micro-aggressions", just deal with it.

Says the guy who never has to deal with such things.

"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit

Posted

"Micro-aggressions"? :lol:

Nobody should be silencing people, especially professors, on their particular views on issues like immigration or affirmative action. Free speech for micro-aggressions!

People are too easily offended these days. If you're offended by un-politically-correct views like "micro-aggressions", just deal with it.

Indeed. I think the social justice warriors have finally pushed too far with their ridiculous attacks on speech and language. 5-10 years ago, the mainstream part of the population just kind of went along with the latest developments in political correctness. Today, mainstream people are finally beginning to see the absurdity for what it is.

Posted

You know this how?

OK, let's hear some examples.

"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
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.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,843
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    beatbot
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Radiorum went up a rank
      Rising Star
    • SkyHigh went up a rank
      Mentor
    • Venandi earned a badge
      Posting Machine
    • Politics1990 went up a rank
      Community Regular
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Proficient
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...