Microaggressions

[Big Guy]

What if one thinks that the mere calling of somebody an asshole makes one an asshole? That would make every poster on this board an asshole. Fortunately, there is only one per person.

[TimG]

You just keep complaining about people being offended, as if you have any right to dictate their thoughts and feelings.

I am not dictating anyone's feelings. I am simply saying if someone gets offended over something they should not be getting offended about then they should expect to be called out as an a**hole. Edited August 10, 2015 by TimG

[kimmy]

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.

Yes, we have long-standing social conventions passed along to us from our parents about things that aren't polite to say to people. By and large these social conventions are the result of white peoples' learning experience in relating to other white people. They're a result of a pretty homogenous culture, and they're somewhat incomplete in a society where things are a lot less homogenous than they used to be.

There's no law that says you can't ask someone how much they get paid, or how much they weigh, but people usually avoid asking these questions in casual conversation because they understand they're stepping into potentially touchy subjects. If there were a bunch more potentially touchy subjects that your momma didn't warn you about, wouldn't you rather know?

So the University of California publishes this little brochure for their professors and staff, to let them know "hey, here are some topics that could potentially cause your non-white students to feel negatively toward you. Exercise caution!" People are free to completely ignore the information, but perhaps they might want to use it to their benefit. Why wouldn't they?

I keep putting this out there: salesmen, do not talk to the blonde girl like she's mentally retarded. Perhaps some salesman out there will read this and say "yeah, that's a good tip, I'll keep that in mind."

Perhaps some other salesman will read that and say "that's not legitimate! There's no long-standing social convention that says not to do that! I completely reject this. Nobody is going to make me change how I interact with my customers! I will continue to talk to blonde women like they're idiots, as is tradition! I'm not going to change my behavior to avoid causing illegitimate offense to somebody who has no legitimate reason to be offended based on established social convention! They're just looking to be offended!" He's certainly free to do that, but he's not getting a commission from me.

And professors can certainly disregard the information they're given about micro-aggressions if they wish, but the professor who rants in class about the tyranny of affirmative action shouldn't be too surprised at the end of the semester when he gets back a bunch of student evaluations that say "this guy is a f***ing prick."

-k

[TimG]

If there were a bunch more potentially touchy subjects that your momma didn't warn you about, wouldn't you rather know?

It is not simple. The list includes many reasonable issues but also includes stuff that is completely ridiculous. The affirmative action is one of those. Obviously it goes without saying that there are times when launching into a political tirade is inappropriate no matter what one's opinions. That I why I interpret the edict to mean university employees are not allowed to criticize affirmative action even in contexts when it is appropriate to express political opinions. People offended by someone's opinions on affirmative action are the problem - not the people expressing them. Edited August 10, 2015 by TimG

[-1=e^ipi]

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.

To be fair, feminists are already trying to get rid of hand clapping because it 'triggers anxiety', so trying to ban hand shaking might be the next step.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/566202/NUS-jazz-hands-clapping-anxiety-feminists

[cybercoma]

What if one thinks that the mere calling of somebody an asshole makes one an asshole? That would make every poster on this board an asshole. Fortunately, there is only one per person.

If you're intolerant of intolerance does that make you intolerant?

[Shady]

Bill Maher had a great segment recently on how bullshit micro aggressions are. I'll post the video as soon as I find a good link to it.

[TimG]

Bill Maher had a great segment recently on how bullshit micro aggressions are. I'll post the video as soon as I find a good link to it.

I find it offensive when people say that reducing CO2 emissions is the only way "save the planet" because it denigrates people who believe that adapting to any changes is a more sensible approach. According to the people in this thread I am entitled to call people a**hole who express such views and I can demand that university officials tell their staff that they should not express such views. Edited August 10, 2015 by TimG

[Moonlight Graham]

No one's expected to censor themselves.

University of California clearly wants people/staff to stop making microaggressions, based on what they define as "aggressive".

Also, if you keep calling TimG an a****le, what exactly does that make you for calling him that on a debating forum? You don't want people to make microaggressions but you're cool with calling people "an a****le"?

[cybercoma]

University of California clearly wants people/staff to stop making microaggressions, based on what they define as "aggressive".

Also, if you keep calling TimG an a****le, what exactly does that make you for calling him that on a debating forum? You don't want people to make microaggressions but you're cool with calling people "an a****le"?

I didn't call TimG an asshole. I said someone who says hurtful and offensive things to people, even after they tell him that those things are hurtful and offensive is an asshole. That's the plain and simple truth.

[-1=e^ipi]

So apparently Bernie Sanders saying 'black lives matter, white lives matter, all lives matter' is a microaggression against black people and now according to SJWs this presidential candidate who has been fighting for civil rights for decades is a racist.

Bill Maher has called microaggressions ridiculous. I guess he must be a racist as well:

[kimmy]

It is not simple. The list includes many reasonable issues but also includes stuff that is completely ridiculous. The affirmative action is one of those. Obviously it goes without saying that there are times when launching into a political tirade is inappropriate no matter what one's opinions. That I why I interpret the edict to mean university employees are not allowed to criticize affirmative action even in contexts when it is appropriate to express political opinions. People offended by someone's opinions on affirmative action are the problem - not the people expressing them.

There's no evidence that this was an "edict", nor a decree, a declaration, a dictate, an ultimatum, a commandment, a fatwah, or any other such thing.

If this was really a curriculum policy update for the political sciences department, would it have been distributed as a brochure for a general audience of professors and academic staff? Alongside examples like "assuming non-white people are service workers" and saying "you people"? Does that really seem like the way a department would notify its professors of changes to the curriculum?

And to once again reference the dick-cheese salesmen I sometimes interact with: you know, when that guy comes up and starts talking to me like an idiot, I don't go through a mental checklist of whether I'm being rational before I form a negative opinion of him. I don't really care if it is or isn't a socially accepted convention that you ought to talk to young blonde women like they're morons; it grates on me regardless. Reactions are formed quite quickly without much conscious thought. If you're in a position where your livelihood depends on positive interaction with the public, why on earth wouldn't you want information like this?

-k

[TimG]

There's no evidence that this was an "edict", nor a decree, a declaration, a dictate, an ultimatum, a commandment, a fatwah, or any other such thing.

It was a memo from management to employees. It will be reasonably interpreted as an edict no matter what spin you want to put on it.

If you're in a position where your livelihood depends on positive interaction with the public, why on earth wouldn't you want information like this?

As I said: if you interact with the public then the general rule is "don't talk about politics" so there was no need to put stuff like expressing opinions on affirmative action on the list. The only reasonable interpretation of the memo/edict is the administration did not want people criticizing affirmative action even when it would be appropriate to express political opinions which I have an issue with.

Basically, take the blatantly political stuff off the list and I have a no issue with a memo that warns people that asking people "where they are from" and other such innocent phrases could be interpreted badly.

Edited August 14, 2015 by TimG

[Black Dog]

It was a memo from management to employees. It will be reasonably interpreted as an edict no matter what spin you want to put on it.

So when my job sends out memos letting employees know it's a holiday like Passover, they're actually telling me to convert to Judaism. Huh.

[Moonlight Graham]

And to once again reference the dick-cheese salesmen I sometimes interact with: you know, when that guy comes up and starts talking to me like an idiot, I don't go through a mental checklist of whether I'm being rational before I form a negative opinion of him. I don't really care if it is or isn't a socially accepted convention that you ought to talk to young blonde women like they're morons; it grates on me regardless. Reactions are formed quite quickly without much conscious thought. If you're in a position where your livelihood depends on positive interaction with the public, why on earth wouldn't you want information like this?

1. I've never heard the term "dick-cheese" before. I'll now use it in casual conversation with friends, so thank you.

2. I think it's a good thing to be aware of the things you say and how you say them, and how they may be perceived by others or even affect others. So the brochures are helpful in that regard. I think the examples used in the brochure though are almost exclusively left-wing PC "down on minorities" examples. Microaggressions can be anything, despite ideological view. I think the brochures aren't hard and fast official rules of the university (at least I don't think so, nor I hope not), but the examples of microaggressions given are clearly meant to give the impression that these kinds of remarks should be avoided by staff/profs and aren't welcome on campus, even if there's no official rule.

The brochures are basically microaggressions against subtle non-PC or non-inclusive speech on campus by staff/profs.

[TimG]

So when my job sends out memos letting employees know it's a holiday like Passover, they're actually telling me to convert to Judaism. Huh.

A more appropriate analogy would be a memo telling non-jewish employees how they should act on passover. You could, of course, argue that compliance was not compulsory but employees who failed to comply would always wonder whether that factored into a missed raise or promotion. If a memo outlining expected behaviors is not intended to be mandatory then the employer needs to specifically state that employees will not be penalized for non-compliance. Edited August 14, 2015 by TimG

[Moonlight Graham]

So when my job sends out memos letting employees know it's a holiday like Passover, they're actually telling me to convert to Judaism. Huh.

That's an illogical comparison.

If your job sends a memo explaining all sorts of reasons why red shirts in the workplace are harmful, they're telling you they don't want you to wear red shirts to work. It's implied in the language. Even if it's not an official stated rule of "YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO WEAR RED SHIRTS TO WORK", they're going around the back door and telling you they don't want you wearing them. It's top-down pressure. A microaggression, if you will.

[Peter F]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yunSRfnsVck

Thanks! I've been looking for that a long time.

[Black Dog]

That's an illogical comparison.

If your job sends a memo explaining all sorts of reasons why red shirts in the workplace are harmful, they're telling you they don't want you to wear red shirts to work. It's implied in the language. Even if it's not an official stated rule of "YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO WEAR RED SHIRTS TO WORK", they're going around the back door and telling you they don't want you wearing them. It's top-down pressure. A microaggression, if you will.

And guess what: you don't have to wear the damn shirt!

[kimmy]

That's an illogical comparison.

If your job sends a memo explaining all sorts of reasons why red shirts in the workplace are harmful, they're telling you they don't want you to wear red shirts to work. It's implied in the language. Even if it's not an official stated rule of "YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO WEAR RED SHIRTS TO WORK", they're going around the back door and telling you they don't want you wearing them. It's top-down pressure. A microaggression, if you will.

Well, to make it a more realistic example, let's change it from a red shirt to an Ed Hardy shirt.

If you came to me with your new Ed Hardy shirt and said "hey, check it out! What do you think?" I would give you advice on why it would be unwise to wear that shirt in public, aside from maybe at monster truck rallies or cage fighting events. I could explain to you that women will assume you're a clueless douche. That people will assume you're an immature mook. People will make assumptions about your intelligence and your judgment and your lifestyle. I could explain that just by your choice of such a questionable garment, you're creating negative biases against yourself before you even get to open your mouth. I can provide all that advice. I can't make you not wear the shirt, but I can provide information as to why it could have negative results.

If you decide "you know what? Kimmy is full of it. This is an awesome shirt, and I look great, and I don't care if a few people think it looks stupid, I'm gonna do my own thing! I gotta be me!" that's completely your call.

But don't complain later on that you didn't know your stupid shirt would make you a target of scorn and ridicule. You were given the advice and you chose to ignore it.

-k

[kimmy]

It was a memo from management to employees. It will be reasonably interpreted as an edict no matter what spin you want to put on it.

It was a brochure from a diversity seminar. I think people understand from the context that it's not a change to curriculum in the poli-sci department (or whichever department you're in where affirmative action would be a relevant academic topic.)

As I said: if you interact with the public then the general rule is "don't talk about politics" so there was no need to put stuff like expressing opinions on affirmative action on the list. The only reasonable interpretation of the memo/edict is the administration did not want people criticizing affirmative action even when it would be appropriate to express political opinions which I have an issue with.

That argument rests on the premise that people have good judgment about what's appropriate or not appropriate in the first place, and we've seen examples recently to put that in doubt (like the Dalhousie dental professor who thought it would be a good idea to "wake up" the students with a bikini video at the start of class.)

Basically, take the blatantly political stuff off the list and I have a no issue with a memo that warns people that asking people "where they are from" and other such innocent phrases could be interpreted badly.

You're the first of the free speech warriors here to even agree to that much, so that's progress.

-k

[TimG]

It was a brochure from a diversity seminar. I think people understand from the context that it's not a change to curriculum in the poli-sci department (or whichever department you're in where affirmative action would be a relevant academic topic.)

I never said it was a change in curriculum. I said it was a memo sent to all employees with wording that suggests consequences for employees that did not comply (i.e. suggesting microaggressions create a 'hostile environment' is equivalent to saying you open yourself to lawsuits).

That argument rests on the premise that people have good judgment about what's appropriate or not appropriate in the first place, and we've seen examples recently to put that in doubt (like the Dalhousie dental professor who thought it would be a good idea to "wake up" the students with a bikini video at the start of class.)

The point you are missing is when one decides to express a political opinion in a group where some people may not agree then your intent is to upset people who do not agree. Therefore, it makes no sense to tell people to not express a particular political opinion because it might upset some people. The only rational reason to put political opinions on the list was to suppress discussion of those topics in contexts where discussion of political POVs is appropriate. This is wrong - especially in a university environment.

You're the first of the free speech warriors here to even agree to that much, so that's progress.

My concern has always been with the political opinions that made it on the list. I learned long before anyone ever used the word "microagression" that asking people "where are you from" can upset people. Edited August 15, 2015 by TimG

[kimmy]

The point you are missing is when one decides to express a political opinion in a group where some people may not agree then your intent is to upset people who do not agree. The only rational reason to put political opinions on the list was to suppress discussion of those topics in contexts where discussion of political POVs is appropriate. This is wrong - especially in a university environment.

See, I think all of that is wrong. I think that almost every professor has the sense to know that some topics like religion and abortion are hot-button topics that could land them in hot water. It's probably not nearly as obvious to professors that other topics might be equally hot-button depending on the audience.

Would a professor talk about non-related stuff in class? Well, yeah, it happens. I audited a physiology course once where the professor went off on a pro-vegan tangent; another professor at a course I audited had really engaging discussions before class about a wide variety of stuff; people would get there early because it was fun. I don't know if he ever got in hot water; the time he made fun of traditional Chinese medicine might have been touchy; he also chatted about the Gomery inquiry. I didn't do much post-secondary but I saw professors talk about non-course material quite a bit in an effort to relate to students. Mostly it was harmless stuff like sports or funny stuff pulled off the internet.

Personally, I have no difficulty picturing some professor, especially some older guy with tenure and a class that's 80% white and 80% male, grumbling about the diversity seminar they had to attend, probably egged on by white male students. Referencing the Dalhousie dental thing again, I believe some of the Facebook posts in question spoke in glowing terms about one of the professors who they deemed a hero for being defiantly un-PC in class.

My concern has always been with the political opinions that made it on the list. I learned long before anyone ever used the word "microagression" that asking people "where are you from" can upset people.

I am literally delighted that one of you guys actually gets this.

And for what it's worth, if I thought informing professors and academic staff about microaggressions was an attempt to censor political debate or shut down dissenting views, I would be opposed. But I don't think that is intended at all, and I think that the efforts to represent it as such are a ginned up controversy designed to create a backlash against "political correctness".

-k

[-1=e^ipi]

Santa Clara University tells students to call 911 if they witness 'microaggressions': http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=6738

Rutgers University declares that freedom of speech doesn't exist: http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=6749

[cybercoma]

I'm sure your extreme right wing blogger's opinion piece is a clear and unbiased report.