Microaggressions

[Black Dog]

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.

Now you know how everyone else feels when they read your posts on this subject. I'll leave you to see if you can spot the contradiction in your post here.

Edited September 24, 2015 by Black Dog

[kimmy]

(...) 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. (...)

You've used an almost incalculable number of words to demonstrate that you completely missed the point.

Your complaint that there's no objective standard for what's allowed and what isn't demonstrates it.

Everything is allowed. Continues to be. Nothing has changed on that front. Despite the sky-is-falling rhetoric, none of this discussion of microaggressions actually relates to the banning or censoring of anything.

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?

People are allowed to speak. Despite the best wishes of e^pi*i, Bonam, TimG, and others, nobody has demonstrated anywhere that anything has been banned. Sorry you bought the hype.

-k

[Bryan]

Now you know how everyone else feels when they read your posts on this subject. I'll leave you to see if you can spot the contradiction in your post here.

"everyone else"? Quite a few people here agree with him.

[Bryan]

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.

Very well put.

[Bonam]

People are allowed to speak. Despite the best wishes of e^pi*i, Bonam, TimG, and others, nobody has demonstrated anywhere that anything has been banned. Sorry you bought the hype.

I have not made the claim that anything has been "banned".

However, I do think the SJ movement is very intolerant of people who make any statement that is not in complete accord with their ideology, especially if the person making said statement happens to be a white male.

[WIP]

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.

Thanks for proving that those who benefit most from white male privilege are the least likely to realize it, and just assume they deserve all of their advantages.

On the other hand, some of us who don't know what it's like to be black...to be an immigrant...to be a woman....to be gay, are not going to assume that we know what sort of impact it may/or may not have, and therefore already be certain of whether so called microaggressions are an issue worthy of consideration and dealing with.

[Black Dog]

I have not made the claim that anything has been "banned".

However, I do think the SJ movement is very intolerant of people who make any statement that is not in complete accord with their ideology, especially if the person making said statement happens to be a white male.

Geez, sounds like you and other white males just need to grow a thicker skin.

[cybercoma]

However, I do think the SJ movement is very intolerant of people who make any statement that is not in complete accord with their ideology, especially if the person making said statement happens to be a white male.

SJWs are intolerant of intolerance? You don't say......

[TimG]

SJWs are intolerant of intolerance? You don't say......

No they are are intolerant of people who do not share their ideological views and rationalize it by claiming that people who disagree with them are intolerant.

[Black Dog]

SJWs are intolerant of intolerance? You don't say......

It's pretty funny: these guys want free speech and to be free from any consequences of that speech. Just want to float along on a cloud of privilege. Just a staggering amount of entitlement.

[Black Dog]

No they are are intolerant of people who do not share their ideological views and rationalize it by claiming that people who disagree with them are intolerant.

So...pretty much like everyone else everywhere, then?

[TimG]

It's pretty funny: these guys want free speech and to be free from any consequences of that speech. Just want to float along on a cloud of privilege. Just a staggering amount of entitlement.

Ah - the truth comes out. They SWJ do want to suppress speech they don't like by imposing 'consequences' on people who fail to conform to their ideology. The 'you are not free from consequences of free speech' is a BS meme created to justify any number of odious acts designed to suppress speech. If someone says something you don't like then free speech means you can speak out against it. But as soon as people start demanding that people be fired or organizing boycotts they are engaging in acts designed to suppress the speech of others.

It is just like the bad old days when people were fired for trying to organize a union.

Edited September 25, 2015 by TimG

[Black Dog]

Ah - the truth comes out. They SWJ do want to suppress speech they don't like by imposing 'consequences' on people who fail to conform to their ideology. The 'you are not free from consequences of free speech' is a BS meme created to justify any number of odious acts designed to suppress speech..

Ok, I'm sure you have lots of examples, then. We'll wait.

If someone says something you don't like then free speech means you can speak out against it. But as soon as people start demanding that people be fired or organizing boycotts they are engaging in acts designed to suppress the speech of others.

This is comedy gold and I bet you don't even know why.

It is just like the bad old days when people were fired for trying to organize a union.

Yes this is just like that, only no one has been fired. But yeah, otherwise exactly the same.

Edited September 25, 2015 by Black Dog

[kimmy]

The "consequences" of being a jerk is that people will think you're a jerk, people might even tell you you're a jerk, and if enough people decide you're a jerk you'll probably get uninvited from events.

Informing people about "microaggressions" is intended to help people understand how things they say might unintentionally cause offense.

-k

[TimG]

The "consequences" of being a jerk is that people will think you're a jerk, people might even tell you you're a jerk, and if enough people decide you're a jerk you'll probably get uninvited from events.

If it stops there it would be fine. But how long before human rights tribunals start fining people for harms caused by microagressions? How long before someone launches a discrimination suit because of 'microagressions" in the workplace? This will come.

[TimG]

Yes this is just like that, only no one has been fired. But yeah, otherwise exactly the same.

Mozilla CEO for donating to anti-gay marriage campaign.

[Black Dog]

If it stops there it would be fine. But how long before human rights tribunals start fining people for harms caused by microagressions? How long before someone launches a discrimination suit because of 'microagressions" in the workplace? This will come.

This is called a slippery slope fallacy.

Mozilla CEO for donating to anti-gay marriage campaign.

How were his free speech rights abrogated? He exercised his right to free speech, others exercised their right to disagree and the Board of Directors exercised their right to eliminate a threat to their bottom line.

It seems pretty clear that you don't see the contradiction in your position. Calling for boycotts or demanding people be fired are also expressions of free speech.

Edited September 25, 2015 by Black Dog

[TimG]

This is called a slippery slope fallacy.

An argument that is valid in many circumstances. People object to the hype over microaggressions because they feel they will lead to the abuses which you now repudiate. The time to argue against the culture that spawns the microaggression nonsense is before it gets so entrenched that people face monetary or legal consequences for being "rude".

How were his free speech rights abrogated? He exercised his right to free speech, others exercised their right to disagree and the Board of Directors exercised their right to eliminate a threat to their bottom line.

Only because activists demanded it and they are people guilty of suppressing free speech. Frankly I am appalled that anyone supports the removal of someone over political opinions that had no bearing on his job. You don't have free speech if people who disagree with you feel like they are entitled to bully you into silence. Free speech does not include the right to bully others into silence. It only includes the right to express your own opinion. Edited September 25, 2015 by TimG

[Black Dog]

An argument that is valid in many circumstances. People object to the hype over microaggressions because they feel they will lead to the abuses which you now repudiate. The time to argue against the culture that spawns the microaggression nonsense is before it gets so entrenched that people face monetary or legal consequences for being "rude".

I would argue the time to argue against such policies is when they are actually real and not figments of your fevered imagination.

Only because activists demanded it and they are people guilty of suppressing free speech.

How? How was his right to free speech infringed upon?

Frankly I am appalled that anyone supports the removal of someone over political opinions that had no bearing on his job.

He wasn't fired for his political opinions. He was fired because the backlash over his political opinions made him a liability to his employer. Are you saying employers have no right to act in their own interests when an employees activities threaten their bottom line?

You don't have free speech if people who disagree with you feel like they are entitled to bully you into silence. Free speech does not include the right to bully others into silence. It only includes the right to express your own opinion.

Let's say this is true (it's obviously bullshit, but let's go with it): how do you propose regulating people's speech er, I mean "bullying?"

Edited September 25, 2015 by Black Dog

[TimG]

Let's say this is true (it's obviously bullshit, but let's go with it): how do you propose regulating people's speech er, I mean "bullying?"

Where have I said anything about regulating speech? I doing what I think should be done: arguing in a public forum that people who take action with the intent of causing harm to someone because of ideas they have expressed are suppressing free speech and it is NOT within their "free speech" rights. It is variation on the phrase "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins". Free speech means you have to allow others to the right to speak and cannot engage in mob tactics where the end objective is silence someone else.

[Black Dog]

Where have I said anything about regulating speech? I doing what I think should be done: arguing in a public forum that people who take action with the intent of causing harm to someone because of ideas they have expressed are suppressing free speech and it is NOT within their "free speech" rights. It is variation on the phrase "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins".

In other words: anyone can say whatever they want because free speech, but if you think someone should be held accountable in some way for what they say, you aren't allowed to say that because their free speech rights are more important than yours for some reason.

Free speech means you have to allow others to the right to speak and cannot engage in mob tactics where the end objective is silence someone else.

If free speech means anything, it means freedom from arbitrary and subjective constraints like this.

[WIP]

The "consequences" of being a jerk is that people will think you're a jerk, people might even tell you you're a jerk, and if enough people decide you're a jerk you'll probably get uninvited from events.

Informing people about "microaggressions" is intended to help people understand how things they say might unintentionally cause offense.

-k

Where I work, that's how a lot of clueless boobs found themselves subject to sexual harassment investigations. It was a joke.....I meant it as a compliment etc..

Some of the verbal and especially physical harassment could not be disguised or excused, but even the ones claiming persecution by the forces of political correctness should have realized that some of the subjects of the compliments were a little more sensitive and suspicious than others, but even if harassment is unintended or unintentional, it's never wise to speak first before thinking.

[TimG]

In other words: anyone can say whatever they want because free speech, but if you think someone should be held accountable in some way for what they say, you aren't allowed to say that because their free speech rights are more important than yours for some reason.

Free speech rights are not a justification for mob justice. The only reason you refuse to acknowledge that is because the mobs today happen to support causes that you believe in. But if that changed? Would you still be so sanguine if people lost their jobs because they said they were in favour of abortion? Edited September 25, 2015 by TimG

[Bonam]

Free speech rights are not a justification for mob justice. The only reason you refuse to acknowledge that is because the mobs today happen to support causes that you believe in. But if that changed? Would you still be so sanguine if people lost their jobs because they said they were in favour of abortion?

Despite the vitriol and condescension from certain posters, this is actually a good line of discussion.

Certainly, the argument that people are free to react to your free speech however they want (within legal bounds) is valid. That can include speaking out against your free speech themselves, or getting together with their friends to not buy your products any more. Calling for someone to get fired is also not illegal and still a form of free speech, so I don't see how one could really argue that it shouldn't be a permissible course of action. Of course, whether the employer can actually fire the person who made the "offending" statement in question could definitely be subject to various labor laws, and those would then have to become the firewall against people being spuriously dismissed.

The problem isn't that people CAN do all of the above, but rather that one of the specific goals of the social justice movement is to try to get people to do the above as much as possible to anyone who makes a statement that they disapprove of (especially if that person happens to be a white male). It's one thing if the actual people at a certain workplace or university are legitimately offended themselves in their actual interactions with someone who made an offensive statement and try to do something about it. It's another when we have "internet police" looking for any departure from absolute conformity to their ideology and ready to unleash mobs of "activists" to do everything within legal bounds possible to make the "offender's" life miserable.

[cybercoma]

It's pretty funny: these guys want free speech and to be free from any consequences of that speech. Just want to float along on a cloud of privilege. Just a staggering amount of entitlement.

Every single time, these anti-SJW people seem to think criticizing their views is censorship. It's funny that they pretend to be oppressed to make up some fake hypocrisy for the SJWs though.