Microaggressions

[Bonam]

I assume now that she's been charged with a criminal offence, you will be leaping to her defense?

Why would you expect that? Unlike ridiculous ideas about "microaggressions", Mustafa's calls for genocide and extermination were a direct violation of the UK's laws against hate speech. It would also have been illegal in Canada.

While there are strong arguments to the effect that hate speech laws shouldn't exist to begin with, given that these laws exist in the UK, this is about as clearly a case of violating them as there can be. Personally, I would prefer if such laws didn't exist... but if anything at all is going to be banned, calling for genocide should probably be #1 on the list.

All that said, I'm sure Mustafa will get away with a slap on the wrist, if even that.

Edited October 6, 2015 by Bonam

[cybercoma]

I assume now that she's been charged with a criminal offence, you will be leaping to her defense?

How dare they stifle free speech on campuses like this!

[cybercoma]

Why would you expect that? Unlike ridiculous ideas about "microaggressions", Mustafa's calls for genocide and extermination were a direct violation of the UK's laws against hate speech.

You're getting it now. All this talk about being aware of microaggressions is for people's edification. They're not crimes.

[Bonam]

Here's another good article article relevant to the topics in this thread:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/

Long, but definitely would be a beneficial read for many here.

Edited October 12, 2015 by Bonam

[TimG]

Here's another good article article relevant to the topics in this thread:

I think this quote summarizes why the "just providing info to help people" argument is nonsense:

The ultimate aim, it seems, is to turn campuses into “safe spaces” where young adults are shielded from words and ideas that make some uncomfortable. And more than the last, this movement seeks to punish anyone who interferes with that aim, even accidentally. You might call this impulse vindictive protectiveness. It is creating a culture in which everyone must think twice before speaking up, lest they face charges of insensitivity, aggression, or worse.

[-1=e^ipi]

University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee has now declared that 'Politically Correct' is now politically incorrect and a microaggression.

http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=6907

[cybercoma]

When you use the term "politically correct" to attack people, saying they're oversensitive and have no right to be offended by racism, misogyny, or other issues that affect them, then it's not a microaggression, it's just overt aggression.

Edited October 27, 2015 by cybercoma

[Bonam]

When you use the term "politically correct" to attack people, saying they're oversensitive and have no right to be offended by racism, misogyny, or other issues that affect them, then it's not a microaggression, it's just overt aggression.

From the article:

Interestingly enough, while the university’s Inclusive Excellence Center has labeled several common-use adjectives harmful, the man running the campaign, Warren Scherer, the director of the university’s Inclusive Excellence Center, has taken to Twitter to express his displeasure with Republican presidential candidates in a non-inclusive manner.

Scherer tweeted “fuck every fiber of your being” to Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee and also accused him of “pandering to Republican Jews.” Scherer, who identifies himself as an UWM employee on his twitter profile, also accused presidential candidate Rand Paul of courting “rich Jews.”

So yeah, the guy running the campaign against microaggressions has no problem with the whole rich Jews pulling the strings stereotype. If he subscribes to that kind of overt racism, which has in fact led to the deaths of millions of people, maybe the university should fix that before worrying about whether someone might be offended by the term "politically correct", no?

[Bonam]

University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee has now declared that 'Politically Correct' is now politically incorrect and a microaggression.

http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=6907

Someone needs to start a list of universities by their level of opposition to / support for free speech.

[Bonam]

When you use the term "politically correct" to attack people, saying they're oversensitive and have no right to be offended by racism, misogyny, or other issues that affect them, then it's not a microaggression, it's just overt aggression.

Also, please go read the article I linked in post #529. Here it is again:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/

The whole idea of "educating people" in universities about "microaggressions" rests on the assumption that it is desirable to reduce the extent to which college students may encounter phrases and ideas that they may find uncomfortable or offensive. But is it really desirable? Do people really need to be protected to that extent? Is the real world perhaps a bit too harsh a place for people who are sheltered from any uncomfortable ideas until after their mid-late 20s when they exit the college world? How will people who have grown up in a bubble of protection against the slightest offense going to deal with real adversity that they may encounter in their adult lives?

There may be some merit to try to shelter children from emotionally difficult ideas while they are in kindergarden or elementary school. But by the time they are in university, if someone is getting upset because someone else talks about "political correctness", then they would benefit more from engaging in a discussion on the topic rather than having university authorities discourage such talk. Growing up in an echo chamber benefits no one.

Edited October 28, 2015 by Bonam

[kimmy]

Also, please go read the article I linked in post #529. Here it is again:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/

I read it earlier, and it's pretty much a load. It conflates "microaggressions" and "trigger warnings" which are two completely different things. Attacking microaggressions by tearing down trigger warnings scores you zero points.

The whole idea of "educating people" in universities about "microaggressions" rests on the assumption that it is desirable to reduce the extent to which college students may encounter phrases and ideas that they may find uncomfortable or offensive. But is it really desirable? Do people really need to be protected to that extent? Is the real world perhaps a bit too harsh a place for people who are sheltered from any uncomfortable ideas until after their mid-late 20s when they exit the college world? How will people who have grown up in a bubble of protection against the slightest offense going to deal with real adversity that they may encounter in their adult lives?

Let me respond to your leading questions with some leading questions of my own:

Is Michael Hardner making the residents of this board too soft by trying enforce rules of civility around here?

Is trying to encourage people to be more considerate of other people just making people too soft?

Would we be a better society if we just abandoned ideas like manners and courtesy, and adopted a "f*** you!" mindset instead?

Is it ironic that this notion is being put forth by the guys on this board who whine the most when it comes to the slings and arrows directed at the poor beleaguered white male?

Would it be microagressive if I suggested that you and e^pi*i should heed your own advice on that score? Or would that be macroaggressive?

Shouldn't you guys stop whining about the poor white male and just "nut up"?

But by the time they are in university, if someone is getting upset because someone else talks about "political correctness", then they would benefit more from engaging in a discussion on the topic rather than having university authorities discourage such talk. Growing up in an echo chamber benefits no one.

In real life, most of the time when I hear the phrase "politically correct", it's being used by some neanderthal who is complaining about being called out for acting like neanderthal.

As in:

"Hey, that was a dick thing you just said."

"Dur! Stop being so politically correct."

And I think that the guy who objects to being called out for acting like a dick is the one who's really living in the echo chamber.

-k

Edited October 28, 2015 by kimmy

[Michael Hardner]

http://uwm.edu/inclusiveexcellence/just-words/

Through Just Words? and Just Words??, we seek to raise awareness of micro aggressions and dismissive terms, their impact, provide an insight into their meaning. We are not seeking to tell people what they can/cannot say.

Civility is part of any society, but I am curious as to why the universities have had to start these programs also.

[-1=e^ipi]

have no right to be offended by racism, misogyny, or other issues

No, you have a right to be offended. Rather, you have no right to not be offended. And given the absurdity how neoprogressives define racism and sexism, everything offends them. To quote Anita Sarkeesian 'everything is sexist, everything is racist and you have to point it all out!'.

How will people who have grown up in a bubble of protection against the slightest offense going to deal with real adversity that they may encounter in their adult lives?

Don't you see the implications? This is going to spill over into the 'real world'. The SJWs will use bully tactics, political pressure and strengthen their position in the media and in educational institutions through cronyism.

I read it earlier, and it's pretty much a load. It conflates "microaggressions" and "trigger warnings" which are two completely different things. Attacking microaggressions by tearing down trigger warnings scores you zero points.

Political correctness, microaggressions, bias words, trigger warnings, safe spaces, it's all related. They aren't completely different things. Heck I was talking to my SJW roommate this week and he was going on about how he was appalled that one of his friends dared to question PM Trudeau's decision to make his cabinet 50% female, 50% male. He called it 'politically incorrect'. Well this is exactly what Berkley calls 'microaggressions'. Neoprogressives are masters at manipulating language. Fortunately for me, I know how to shut up about these things and blend in.

You keep conflating being uncivil/disrespectful with simply having a different political position, such as 'the most qualified person should get the job'. I can be respectful. Heck I've used trigger warnings recently at asexuality.org. Personally, I don't really like the term and am a bit triggered by the word 'trigger'. Why not just call them warnings?

Would we be a better society if we just abandoned ideas like manners and courtesy, and adopted a "f*** you!" mindset instead?

And which group of people is the one with the f*** you mindset? The fire-alarm-pulling fascists that try to prevent dissenting opinion from being discussed on campuses and issue bomb threats to groups they disagree with? Are the SJWs being respectful when people like Janice Fiamengo, Cathy Young or Karen Straughan try to speak on campuses?

whine the most when it comes to the slings and arrows directed at the poor beleaguered white male?

The verb whine is frequently used to try to use gender conditioning to prevent men from discussing their feelings. I'm super triggered by it!

Also, what's wrong with being concerned about a hate group that opposes egalitarianism and continually attacks you?

Shouldn't you guys stop whining about the poor white male and just "nut up"?

And now you are adding nut up to refer to testicles? Wow, that language is so sexist. As a non-cisgendered non-heterosexual person I suggest that you use less sexist language.

And I think that the guy who objects to being called out for acting like a dick is the one who's really living in the echo chamber.

Dick? Again with the sexist language? Wow. I need to go to my safe space.

[cybercoma]

From the article:

Interestingly enough, while the university’s Inclusive Excellence Center has labeled several common-use adjectives harmful, the man running the campaign, Warren Scherer, the director of the university’s Inclusive Excellence Center, has taken to Twitter to express his displeasure with Republican presidential candidates in a non-inclusive manner.

Scherer tweeted “fuck every fiber of your being” to Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee and also accused him of “pandering to Republican Jews.” Scherer, who identifies himself as an UWM employee on his twitter profile, also accused presidential candidate Rand Paul of courting “rich Jews.”

So yeah, the guy running the campaign against microaggressions has no problem with the whole rich Jews pulling the strings stereotype. If he subscribes to that kind of overt racism, which has in fact led to the deaths of millions of people, maybe the university should fix that before worrying about whether someone might be offended by the term "politically correct", no?

Is that an argument against the argument I was making? Because it looks more like an ad hominem fallacy to me. I don't agree with those awful statements, but that doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with what I'm saying, now does it?

[cybercoma]

Also, please go read the article I linked in post #529. Here it is again:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/

This article is garbage. They can't even tell the difference between "trigger warnings" and "microaggressions." I don't need to read further than that to know that the author is out of their depth.

[cybercoma]

http://uwm.edu/inclusiveexcellence/just-words/

Civility is part of any society, but I am curious as to why the universities have had to start these programs also.

Did you not look into microaggressions ages ago when I provided references to what it's about? The reason they start these programs is because often times it's unintentional discrimination that reinforces social barriers. Therefore, the universities have developed programs to bring attention to them, so people who don't want to be "neanderthals," as kimmy called them, can choose not to be.

[cybercoma]

No, you have a right to be offended. Rather, you have no right to not be offended. And given the absurdity how neoprogressives define racism and sexism, everything offends them. To quote Anita Sarkeesian 'everything is sexist, everything is racist and you have to point it all out!'.

What's absurd is white middle class cisgendered men telling people of colour, women, transgendered people, etc. what is and is not racism, ablism, misogyny, etc. What's absurd is the ridiculous notion of "that's not sexist because I didn't mean it to be sexist," as if you get to define it. Edited October 28, 2015 by cybercoma

[-1=e^ipi]

What's absurd is white middle class cisgendered men telling

1. What is absurd is the belief that somehow the validity of someone's opinion depends on their race, sex, gender, etc. That's sexism/racism/etc.

2. Are you implying that I am cisgendered?

[cybercoma]

I guess you're never going to get it, are you? White people telling people of colour that their definition of racism is oversensitive and wrong....you don't see a problem with that?

[-1=e^ipi]

You didn't answer my question: Are you implying that I am cisgendered?

you don't see a problem with that?

No, because I'm not a racist like you who thinks the value of someone's opinion is dependent on their race. If a 'person of colour' defines racism as banana, I'll tell them they are wrong.

[Michael Hardner]

Did you not look into microaggressions ages ago when I provided references to what it's about? The reason they start these programs is because often times it's unintentional discrimination that reinforces social barriers. Therefore, the universities have developed programs to bring attention to them, so people who don't want to be "neanderthals," as kimmy called them, can choose not to be.

Yes, but the earlier example was a staff directive, wasn't it ?

[Bonam]

This article is garbage. They can't even tell the difference between "trigger warnings" and "microaggressions." I don't need to read further than that to know that the author is out of their depth.

Considering that he specifically defines both microaggressions and trigger warnings (as two obviously separate things) in paragraph 2, it seems that you chose to simply dismiss the article because someone you disagree with posted it rather than bothering to read it with an open mind. Sadly, not atypical at all on MLW.

[cybercoma]

Considering that he specifically defines both microaggressions and trigger warnings (as two obviously separate things) in paragraph 2, it seems that you chose to simply dismiss the article because someone you disagree with posted it rather than bothering to read it with an open mind. Sadly, not atypical at all on MLW.

And then goes on to conflate them.

[cybercoma]

You didn't answer my question: Are you implying that I am cisgendered?

Your gender is irrelevant to the discussion, but keep trying to interject it.

No, because I'm not a racist like you who thinks the value of someone's opinion is dependent on their race. If a 'person of colour' defines racism as banana, I'll tell them they are wrong.

I'm a racist am I? Because I don't think a white person should tell a black person whether their own experiences of racism are valid or not?

War is peace and happiness is slavery, eh?

[Bonam]

And then goes on to conflate them.

Where does he conflate them?