Microaggressions

[cybercoma]

CampusReform.org is run by the Leadership Institute for those interested. http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/leadership-institute

This is akin to betsy posting a religious blogger's "report" on evolutionary science.

[cybercoma]

So it took all of 3 secs to find the website and page that "report" was about. See here: https://utexas.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_bIpy3yhYFgrYjE9

Turns out the university wants students to report bias incidents to the campus "climate response team" not the police. The page has a disclaimer there that says:

Do not use this form if you are currently in a situation where immediate police, medical, psychological or other emergency services are needed. In the event of an emergency, call 911 or the University of Texas Police Department at 512-471-4441 for assistance.

So it's not bias incidents, but emergencies, where students should call 9/11.

You extreme right wing hacks aren't even trying anymore.

[BubberMiley]

Especially since the blog even conceded Santa Clara said nothing about "microaggressions." That was just added for our benefit.

[TimG]

Especially since the blog even conceded Santa Clara said nothing about "microaggressions." That was just added for our benefit.

Semantics. By even encouraging that simple "bias" be reported they are creating a truly Orwellian environment.

[kimmy]

CampusReform.org is run by the Leadership Institute for those interested. http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/leadership-institute

This is akin to betsy posting a religious blogger's "report" on evolutionary science.

With all this horse manure, there has to be a pony in here somewhere!

The redoubtable Free Speech Heroes know that freedom of expression is being destroyed by the social justice warriors, and they won't stop inventing evidence until they can prove it to the rest of us!

-k

[kimmy]

Semantics. By even encouraging that simple "bias" be reported they are creating a truly Orwellian environment.

Pretty sure that the difference between calling the "Campus Climate Response Team" and calling 9-1-1 is more than semantics, Tim.

-k

[TimG]

Pretty sure that the difference between calling the "Campus Climate Response Team" and calling 9-1-1 is more than semantics, Tim.

Yeah, that was a ridiculous error on their part. I am simply pointing out that the idea that simple "bias" should be reported to anyone is very disturbing regardless of the error. Edited August 24, 2015 by TimG

[kimmy]

Yeah, that was a ridiculous error on their part.

If by "error" you mean a deliberate attempt to mislead their readers and misrepresent what they're criticizing, then yeah, I guess it's a pretty ridiculous error.

I am simply pointing out that the idea that simple "bias" should be reported to anyone is very disturbing regardless of the error.

So, hypothetically, when that dentistry professor at Dalhousie decided to "wake up" the students with a bikini model video, the students should have just kept their mouths shut? It's disturbing to you that they complained?

-k

[TimG]

So, hypothetically, when that dentistry professor at Dalhousie decided to "wake up" the students with a bikini model video, the students should have just kept their mouths shut? It's disturbing to you that they complained?

Classroom material has different standards. For example, any expression of political opinions in a classroom is inappropriate even if those opinions can be freely expressed elsewhere. Similarly a group of people watching bikini model video in the dorm TV room is fine yet it could be reported as 'bias' under this orwellian policy. Don't you find this disturbing?

[kimmy]

When Muslim students direct anti-Jewish slurs towards Jewish students on campus, would it be disturbing to you if the Jewish kid called the "campus climate response line"?

-k

[Bonam]

When Muslim students direct anti-Jewish slurs towards Jewish students on campus, would it be disturbing to you if the Jewish kid called the "campus climate response line"?

-k

Yeah, it would be disturbing, since the Jew should know better, since any "campus climate response team" or similar would reflexively side with the Muslim against the "Zionist".

[TimG]

When Muslim students direct anti-Jewish slurs towards Jewish students on campus, would it be disturbing to you if the Jewish kid called the "campus climate response line"?

You avoided my point. The problem is the word 'bias' is too vague and captures a wide range of behavior that range from the reasonable to the outrageous. They could have used terms like 'discrimination' if they wanted to only capture behaviors that are obviously over the line which I why I think their intent is to punish all behavior that does not conform to the SWJ play book (meaning slurs against Jews by Muslims are completely fine). Edited August 24, 2015 by TimG

[-1=e^ipi]

@ cybercoma - thank you for correcting me on the 911 thing.

So, hypothetically, when that dentistry professor at Dalhousie decided to "wake up" the students with a bikini model video, the students should have just kept their mouths shut? It's disturbing to you that they complained?

It's not disturbing that they complained. They should have complained. Professors should stick to class material during class and not try to go off on tangents, especially ones that are politically/sexually inappropriate.

[cybercoma]

Yeah, it would be disturbing, since the Jew should know better, since any "campus climate response team" or similar would reflexively side with the Muslim against the "Zionist".

For someone that criticizes people for not backing things up, this sure as hell is a wild fantasy you're offering as though it were fact.

[cybercoma]

@ cybercoma - thank you for correcting me on the 911 thing.

.

it's not your fault. It's the lousy source that's pushing an ideological agenda.

[-1=e^ipi]

If the microaggression thing was just about pointing out that small statements or actions can be demeaning/hurtful and that this can add up over time, or that professors should stick to class material, I would have no problem with it.

But its pretty clearly that many SJWs want to use anti-microaggression policy to silence dissenting opinions made by students/faculty at universities during their own free time, for example if they make a statement on facebook.

[-1=e^ipi]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_opportunity

Equal opportunity is a stipulation that all people should be treated similarly, unhampered by artificial barriers or prejudices or preferences, except when particular distinctions can be explicitly justified.^[1] The aim according to this often complex and contested concept^[2] is that important jobs should go to those “most qualified” – persons most likely to perform ably in a given task – and not go to persons for arbitrary or irrelevant reasons, such as circumstances of birth, upbringing, friendship ties to whoever is in power,^[3] religion, sex,^[4] ethnicity,^[4] race, caste,^[5] or involuntary personal attributes such as disability, age, gender, or sexual orientation.

I guess equal opportunity is a microaggression.

[cybercoma]

Except that microaggressions by their definition are a way of treating people differently, creating barriers due to prejudices. But that might be pretty tough when words don't have meaning for you.

[-1=e^ipi]

Except that microaggressions by their definition are a way of treating people differently, creating barriers due to prejudices. But that might be pretty tough when words don't have meaning for you.

Up is down, left is right in Orwellian progressive land.

[Black Dog]

Up is down, left is right in Orwellian progressive land.

I wonder if you've actually read any Orwell because I suspect he'd be spinning in his grave at your abuse of his name.

[-1=e^ipi]

The nonsense continues: https://archive.is/3sJIl

If the UCLA resolution goes through then it will prohibit:

- Depicting or articulating a view of people with disabilities (both visible and invisible) as incapable.

- Attempts to discuss cultural or biological differences between men and women, between gay and straight people, or between different ethnic groups will be condemned totally.

So if I say that paraplegic people are less capable of walking than the general population, or that there are biological differences between gay and straight people which cause gay people to be gay, I am committing an act of 'Intolerance' and should face disciplinary action.

[Bonam]

The nonsense continues: https://archive.is/3sJIl

If the UCLA resolution goes through then it will prohibit:

- Depicting or articulating a view of people with disabilities (both visible and invisible) as incapable.

- Attempts to discuss cultural or biological differences between men and women, between gay and straight people, or between different ethnic groups will be condemned totally.

So if I say that paraplegic people are less capable of walking than the general population, or that there are biological differences between gay and straight people which cause gay people to be gay, I am committing an act of 'Intolerance' and should face disciplinary action.

Here's another good one for you... white women crying in the presence of their "colored" betters is a microaggression:

http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/white-womens-tears-and-the-men-who-love-them-twlm/

Getting emotional? Too damn bad. People of other races shouldn't have to put up with your stupid useless white emotions!

[Black Dog]

Here's another good one for you... white women crying in the presence of their "colored" betters is a microaggression:

http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/white-womens-tears-and-the-men-who-love-them-twlm/

Getting emotional? Too damn bad. People of other races shouldn't have to put up with your stupid useless white emotions!

You didn't read the article I guess? Like, disagree with it if you wish, but at least make an effort to address the actual argument.

[Rue]

"What's wrong with being an asshole and thinking about what you say?" says Blackdog.

Well Blackdog some could argue the above comment is clear evidence you are the former and did not engage in the latter.. If they then said that to you, it would be a micro-aggression according to that term. Your comments in response to this thread suggesting someone was ignorant because they didn't agree with your opinion on what micro-aggressiveness means or that they were childish for not agreeing with you or thinking could be construed as micro aggression.

In fact you demonstrate exactly the peril of trying to define what is or is not micro aggression which is just a couching of the term "politically acceptable.

You demonstrated in your words how you believe anyone who disagrees with you and your interpretation of what is acceptable comment is an asshole, ignorant and childish. Your words and their conclusions are there for all to read. So who died and made your words acceptable but not those of the people you disagree with?

Your very comment "thinking about what you say" raises a subjective standard most probably only known to you because you sure as hell did not take the time to explain how you know how to objectively test and determine when one thinks before they talk.

How would you objectively measure this? What will you do place a machine on people's heads to monitor which level of their brain is being accessed before you decide whether to allow them to speak?

What an absurd, elitist, arrogant comment you made. Did you really think before you said it or am I just saying that because I am micro-aggressivizing you-or am I right, you didn't think, you blurted it out trying to be snarky and suggest anyone that says something you find childish or ignorant, is not thinking?

The very statement by you about assholes thinking before they talk I would argue indicates you are calling people you disagree with assholes who don't think before they write. That is why I argue its subjective, elitist and drips with arrogance or what I call the "my sheeyit don't stink but yours does" syndrome.

The best your words have contributed to this thread I would argue demonstrates you are quick to provide subjective opinions, but no objective suggestions as to how to respond to the actual crux of the issue and that remains-who the phack determines what is appropriate or not and how will they do that?

Get back to me when you have objective criteria for showing who thinks and who does not before they express an opinion.

Until then you really have nothing to say because unlike the person who started the thread and expressed concern as to who determines what is or is not micro-aggression and how could they possibly determine that objectively-you've not answered his question-all you have done is bring attention to yourself and how you subjectively dismiss people as childish, not thinking, assholes, etc., when you don't agree with them.

Guess what-its not what you believe or feel or think Black Dog that determines the limits of freedom-if it was that simple we would be putting posters up all over the place of you. This is not North Korea.

Edited September 23, 2015 by Rue

[Bonam]

You didn't read the article I guess? Like, disagree with it if you wish, but at least make an effort to address the actual argument.

I did read it, but honestly, why bother addressing it other than with a casual dismissal? The points made in it all rest on unfalsifiable assumptions, even if one were to ignore the thinly veiled race/gender hatred that underlies the whole movement that gives rise to articles like this.