Microaggressions

[-1=e^ipi]

The link doesn't seem to have the information you posted below. Then you have a box saying these aren't policy, then a bunch of blog links.

It's very confusing - can you clarify this ? Otherwise it seems like it's just noise.

... I explained this in my post. The guide has been temporarily taken down (so the link no longer takes you to the guide; a screenshot was the best I could find) and the university administration has distanced themselves from this, so it's not like in Berkley's case where the guide is endorsed by the administration.

[kimmy]

I keep picturing you getting your ass kicked by angry black guys after you've explained to them that they're being irrational for being offended that you called them "you people."

-k

Edited August 2, 2015 by kimmy

[-1=e^ipi]

I keep picturing you

Who is you?

[Bryan]

I keep picturing you getting your ass kicked by angry black guys after you've explained to them that they're being irrational for being offended that you called them "you people."

Right. Because all black people are incapable of intelligent discussion, and will assault anyone who disagrees with them.

[kimmy]

Right. Because all black people are incapable of intelligent discussion, and will assault anyone who disagrees with them.

There's nothing "intelligent" about the notion that you have any business telling people how they're supposed to feel about things.

"You people need to stop resisting police. Just cooperate and everything will be fine."

"What do you mean 'you people'?"

"You know. Negroes."

"What the--"

"Look, there's no need to be irrational. Negroes is a historically accurate term."

"Are you for real?"

"See, this is why I find it so frustrating to deal with you people. You react so irrationally to everything. Why do Negroes have to react emotionally instead of having an intelligent discussion?"

Yeeaaaahhh, *that's* an intelligent discussion.

-k

[Bryan]

That fake conversation that you just made up? No, not very intelligent at all.

[kimmy]

That fake conversation that you just made up? No, not very intelligent at all.

Well, I was hoping to illustrate two points with the fake conversation I wrote.

The first is, who are you to decide what's rational or irrational for people to take offense at? The whole thread long I have been asking this question of people who scoff at the idea of "micro-aggressions", and have yet to get any kind of answer. You know that "you people" and "Negroes" is going to cause offense if you're talking to a black person... are you going to use those words anyway and then explain to them that they're being "irrational" when they react negatively? Or are you going to use different words so that the conversation doesn't turn negative?

The second is, are you trying to have a conversation or a confrontation? If you're trying to actually have a conversation, why would you sabotage it by using language that you know is just going to antagonize the person you're trying to talk to? Of course, if you're deliberately trying to sabotage the conversation, feel free to continue being a jerk and using confrontational language, but don't complain that the other person is the one being irrational when you've deliberately selected this confrontational course.

-k

[Bryan]

Well, I was hoping to illustrate two points with the fake conversation I wrote.

The first is, who are you to decide what's rational or irrational for people to take offense at? The whole thread long I have been asking this question of people who scoff at the idea of "micro-aggressions", and have yet to get any kind of answer. You know that "you people" and "Negroes" is going to cause offense if you're talking to a black person... are you going to use those words anyway and then explain to them that they're being "irrational" when they react negatively? Or are you going to use different words so that the conversation doesn't turn negative?

The second is, are you trying to have a conversation or a confrontation? If you're trying to actually have a conversation, why would you sabotage it by using language that you know is just going to antagonize the person you're trying to talk to? Of course, if you're deliberately trying to sabotage the conversation, feel free to continue being a jerk and using confrontational language, but don't complain that the other person is the one being irrational when you've deliberately selected this confrontational course.

-k

If someone makes conversation, and the other person looks for a reason to be upset about something, the second person in that scenario is the only one acting like a jerk. They are the ones being confrontational. They are the ones sabotaging the conversation by being ridiculous. At that point, I wouldn't care if I had a conversation with them anymore, because I'm talking to someone who values drama over content.

If someone did use the word "negro" in conversation, you're probably talking to someone who is 80 years old. What good would it do to get into an argument with an old man over the semantics of ever-changing racial terminology?

As for "You People", that's the same issue as "where are you from". EVERYBODY is "you people" to somebody. In Cuba, all Canadians are "you people". In the kickboxing class at my gym, all the jiu-jitsu practitioners are "you people". To left-wingers, conservatives are "you people". To car drivers, cyclists are "you people". If that's a conversation stopper to someone, that's just more drama.

[kimmy]

If someone makes conversation, and the other person looks for a reason to be upset about something, the second person in that scenario is the only one acting like a jerk. They are the ones being confrontational. They are the ones sabotaging the conversation by being ridiculous. At that point, I wouldn't care if I had a conversation with them anymore, because I'm talking to someone who values drama over content.

If you insist on using language that you know is going to cause offense, you're not really trying to have a conversation, you're just trying to cause offense.

It's entirely predictable that the conversation is going to turn hostile, and it's your own fault for taking it there. You weren't really interested in talking at all, you were interested in badgering somebody for "looking to be offended".

If someone did use the word "negro" in conversation, you're probably talking to someone who is 80 years old. What good would it do to get into an argument with an old man over the semantics of ever-changing racial terminology?

Wait, so you're saying you don't personally use the word "negro" when you talk to black people? Why is that? Why would you deprive yourself of this opportunity to assert your Free Speech Rights and inform people that they're irrational for taking offense?

As for "You People", that's the same issue as "where are you from". EVERYBODY is "you people" to somebody. In Cuba, all Canadians are "you people". In the kickboxing class at my gym, all the jiu-jitsu practitioners are "you people". To left-wingers, conservatives are "you people". To car drivers, cyclists are "you people". If that's a conversation stopper to someone, that's just more drama.

"Where are you from?" has a different connotation when you're used to hearing it being asked by people who assume from your appearance that you're an immigrant.

"You people" has a different connotation when its being used to ascribe stereotypical traits to you based on your skin color.

-k

[-1=e^ipi]

The whole thread long I have been asking this question of people who scoff at the idea of "micro-aggressions", and have yet to get any kind of answer.

I don't scoff at the idea of micro-aggressions, I just find it concerning that it's being used to justify essential banning free speech and certain political positions on universities. Especially since many of these positions are classical liberal positions, such as thinking that everyone should be treated equally and get paid based on their merit, not on race or gender.

You know that "you people" and "Negroes" is going to cause offense if you're talking to a black person.

To be fair, 'you people' depends on context.

[-1=e^ipi]

Look this interpretation of microaggressions being pushed at universities essentially bans classic liberalism. It suggests that the following positions of Morgan Freeman and Martin Luther King Jr. are hateful racist microaggressions, and if you hold them you should receive disciplinary action by the university.

Morgan Freeman:

"black history month is ridiculous."
To solve racism you should "stop talking about [race]."

This classifies as a microaggression under the "Color Blindness" section of the UCLA microaggression guide. In particular, it denies the significance of a person of color’s racial/ethnic experience and history and the individual as a racial/cultural being

Martin Luther King Jr.

People should "not be judged on the color of their skin but by the content of their character"

This classifies as a microaggression under the "Myth of Meritocracy" section of the UCLA microaggression guide. It's right up there with " I believe the most qualified person should get the job."

[cybercoma]

it's being used to justify essential banning free speech

People have pointed out repeatedly in this thread that this "banning free speech" thing isn't happening. You're free to say just about whatever the hell you want and guess what? People are free to respond to it too.

[-1=e^ipi]

People have pointed out repeatedly in this thread that this "banning free speech" thing isn't happening. You're free to say just about whatever the hell you want and guess what? People are free to respond to it too.

And they are also free to fire you or not give you tenure if you say the wrong thing.

Edited August 3, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[cybercoma]

Show it. None of the facts posted support your histrionics about censorship and people losing their jobs.

[Smallc]

Today I was at Subway, and the woman behind the counter asked me where I was from. Before, I wouldn't have thought anything of it, but...I was very offended.

I'm sorry I couldn't help myself.

[Bob Macadoo]

What I don't understand is why do you care where that person is from......if they said "Guangdong Province"......are you running home to Google it. Its an asinine question intentional offensive or not. I'm caucasian and I get asked on occasion where I'm from due to my dialect....I find it dumb as either they fumbly try to relate to whatever I say or ignore I said anything as they can't relate to it.......just ask me "some weather huh?" and move on.

[kimmy]

Said before, will repeat, the question has a very different connotation if you're used to hearing it from people who assume from your appearance that you're Fresh Off the Boat. Why is it so difficult for you guys to accept that other people have different experiences than you?

And, since we're back here again, why is it that none of you guys care to elaborate on your ideas of when it's "legitimate" to be offended. Earlier on TimG said he felt that the microaggressions brochure should make clear that it isn't "legitimate" or "rational" for people to take offense. Bryan asserts that people who react negatively to stuff that he thinks is harmless are "just looking for a reason to be offended."

I have asked who decides what's legitimate to be offended by, and whether it's ever legitimate to be offended. No responses. Is it ever legitimate to take offense? If somebody goes around addressing black people as Negroes and they don't like it, is that "legitimate"? When I go into an electronics shop and the sales guy talks down to me as if I had the mental capacity of a toddler, is it "legitimate" that I think he's a prick?

I just want to hear more about this idea of what's "legitimate" to take offense at.

-k

[TimG]

I have asked who decides what's legitimate to be offended by, and whether it's ever legitimate to be offended.

No one decides. It is just a social convention. The people publishing these lists of "microagression" are trying to change the social convention and people on the board are saying there is no reason to change the conventions. For example, someone could decide that they find it offensive people try to shake their hand. They are obviously entitled to be offended if they want to be but it is not reasonable to start telling everyone that they have to stop trying to shake hands because 0.00001% of the people they meet find it offensive. That is what I mean by legitimate. People can take offense if they want to but in some cases they can't expect others to care about offending them. In other cases, the people causing offense are being unreasonable. The line between the 2 exists, it is arbitrary and we are merely debating where the line should be. Edited August 9, 2015 by TimG

[cybercoma]

It's arbitrary, but people shouldn't get to decide for themselves when they're offended (since you've spent an awful lot of time saying they're wrong for being offended). Unless they're white men, preferably middle to upper class, have no disabilities, and are heterosexual, amiright? Those guys can decide for themselves if they're offended or not and nobody can tell them otherwise. That would be unreasonable.

Edited August 9, 2015 by cybercoma

[TimG]

It's arbitrary, but people shouldn't get to decide for themselves when they're offended

I said it does not matter what people choose to get offended about. The issue is how other people should react to their taking offense. If people want to take offense at things which everyone else thinks are reasonable then they have no right to expect others to care that they are offended. Edited August 9, 2015 by TimG

[cybercoma]

I said it does not matter what people choose to get offended about. The issue is how other people should react to their taking offense. If people want to take offense at things which everyone else thinks are reasonable then they have no right to expect others to care that they are offended.

Yeah. Heaven forbid they call you out for being an a****le

[TimG]

Yeah. Heaven forbid they call you out for being an a****le

Sure they can. But the response they will get told that they are an a**hole for taking offense.

What makes you think you are exclusively entitled to decide where the line is drawn?

You seem to agree it is an arbitrary social convention therefore there is no objective criteria to use.

Edited August 9, 2015 by TimG

[cybercoma]

You said it was arbitrary. Not me. You seem to think you get to decide for others when it's ok for them to be offended, particularly when you're doing the offending. If you don't see how stupid that is, then there's not much else to say.

Edited August 9, 2015 by cybercoma

[TimG]

You said it was arbitrary.

Society would grind to a halt if everyone was expected to censor themselves to ensure that no one is ever offended. I certainly don't want to live in such as society and think that learning to choose to not be offended is a social skill that is as important as learning to avoid offending people. Edited August 9, 2015 by TimG

[cybercoma]

No one's expected to censor themselves. You just keep complaining about people being offended, as if you have any right to dictate their thoughts and feelings. As has been said at least a dozen times in this thread alone, if you want to be an asshole, go right ahead. Everyone else gets to call you one for it. Don't want people to think you're an asshole. Then don't act like it.