Microaggressions

[-1=e^ipi]

I'm a racist am I?

Yes. More accurately a cognitively dissonant racist.

War is peace and happiness is slavery, eh?

In SJW/neoprogressive land it is.

[-1=e^ipi]

I need to clarify what I mean by cognitively dissonant racist. Let's start with some definitions:

Cognitive Dissonance - The state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioral decisions and attitude change.

There is also a second definition where cognitive dissonance is used to describe the discomfort of having inconsistent beliefs, but in the case of this thread I am referring to the state itself.

Cognitive dissonance is very similar to the concept of Doublethink, which is defined as: Doublethink is the act of ordinary people simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct.

Racist - Someone who supports discrimination or prejudice based upon race.

Note that many SJW types are trying to redefine racism as Privilege + Power or whatever in order to make it impossible for racism against whites to count as racism and in order to help resolve their cognitive dissonance.

What I mean by cognitively dissonant racist is someone who simultaneously thinks that they are not racist while advocating discrimination or prejudice based on race (thus they are being cognitively dissonant). Affirmative action is inherently discrimination based on race by its definition, so is racist. However, judging from my interactions with others, I think that the majority of supporters of affirmative action have done enough mental gymnastics to trick themselves into believing that affirmative action is not racist (cognitive dissonance). Thus most supporters of affirmative action classify as cognitively dissonant racists.

[cybercoma]

If you had a point to make it would stand on its own, instead you've just become argumentative about your own gender and are going on at length trying to call me a racist. Your line of arguing here speaks for itself. When you're ready to stop trolling, let me know.

[-1=e^ipi]

Actually, I was clarifying because Michael wanted me to.

In any case, it's ironic that you are complaining about me taking the position valuing someone's position on the basis of their race is racist, when you have been one of the worst offenders when it comes to labeling me with derogatory labels.

[Michael Hardner]

Actually, I was clarifying because Michael wanted me to.

No - please read my message again.

Calling someone a racist is mostly an insult - do not do it.

I was going to hide these posts, but I'm leaving them to clarify. Let's move on now with an actual discussion.

[cybercoma]

Actually, I was clarifying because Michael wanted me to.

In any case, it's ironic that you are complaining about me taking the position valuing someone's position on the basis of their race is racist, when you have been one of the worst offenders when it comes to labeling me with derogatory labels.

When did I complain about you taking a position?

The problem here is that you seem to think that it's acceptable, even appropriate, for someone from a privileged group to discount the experiences of oppression that others face because we should all be colour blind or gender blind. Dismissing people's experiences is oppressive, but you consistently ignore the power relationships at play in these situations.

It's not my job to make you see that, for example, a white person telling a black person to "suck it up" when they experience racism is not only wrong, but pretty bloody disgusting. If you don't get it, you don't get it. But to twist that into being a racist argument itself is not only wrong, it shows a stunning ignorance about what racism actually is and how power is a key factor in racism.

If you ever feel like enlightening yourself, there's myriad resources out there to teach you about these things. You might want to start by understanding how oppressive gas-lighting can be. Coming from a privileged position and denying oppressed persons their experiences is exactly that kind of abuse and you as well as others constantly engage in it.

[Boges]

So are we supposed to recognize racial differences or not? Or Cultural differences for that matter, because there's a difference.

My cultural heritage is of a nation that's mostly non-white. I kind of have to downplay my cultural heritage because it's not immediately apparent because of my racial makeup. And when I do reveal my heritage, I'm often asked to speak with an accent to prove it (how's that for microaggressive?)

Growing up in a extraordinarily multicultural part of the country, I am very comfortable being friendly with people of other racial groups, even to the point of being in multiple romantic relationships with people of other racial groups. You recognize the difference but you don't care.

I recently started playing in a sports league where I was actually the only white person there. I may have found it a little weird only because it was a unique experience for a White Canadian but it didn't seem to matter to any of us. We were all Canadians, that was our shared heritage and we could enjoy time together because of that.

I think people are over thinking a lot of this stuff.

Edited October 29, 2015 by Boges

[-1=e^ipi]

someone from a privileged group

Are you implying that I am 'privileged'? Well I doubt you will admit or deny it, nor will you admit or deny if you are implying I am cisgendered.

I'm just going to assume you are, because I'm annoyed by your constant implications followed by refusal to admit or deny it.

People are individuals, this is what you and the SJWs don't seem to understand. Instead you lump everyone together based on race, gender, sex, sexual orientation, etc., generalize people's experience based on the category they fall into, call it 'intersectionality' and think that you are being nuanced. That's not nuance, individualism is nuance. According to your ideology, I'm somehow privileged because Bill Gates is privileged, Justin Trudeau is privileged, they are white males and so am I; that doesn't make me privileged that just means that those 2 individuals are privileged. Stop generalizing people's experiences on the basis of race or sex; you don't know my life's experience so stop pretending you do. This tendency to categorize people and generalize their experiences is the cognitive trait that leads to racism and sexism. The idea that people are privileged/oppressed because other people that have the same superficial traits were privileged/oppressed makes about as much moral sense as original sin (the idea that we are guilty because some rib lady ate a magic fruit) or North Korea's concept of 3 generations of punishment.

Dismissing people's experiences is oppressive

Which you and the SJWs do by generalizing people's experiences on the basis of sex and race.

a white person telling a black person to "suck it up"

No one is doing that in this thread.

But to twist that into being a racist argument itself is not only wrong

It isn't wrong, it logically follows from the definition of racism.

If you ever feel like enlightening yourself, there's myriad resources out there to teach you about these things.

Replace enlightening and teach with indoctrinating and indoctrinate and your sentence makes more sense.

[Black Dog]

People are individuals, this is what you and the SJWs don't seem to understand. Instead you lump everyone together based on race, gender, sex, sexual orientation, etc., generalize people's experience based on the category they fall into, call it 'intersectionality' and think that you are being nuanced. That's not nuance, individualism is nuance.

El oh el.

According to your ideology, I'm somehow privileged because Bill Gates is privileged, Justin Trudeau is privileged, they are white males and so am I; that doesn't make me privileged that just means that those 2 individuals are privileged. Stop generalizing people's experiences on the basis of race or sex; you don't know my life's experience so stop pretending you do. This tendency to categorize people and generalize their experiences is the cognitive trait that leads to racism and sexism. The idea that people are privileged/oppressed because other people that have the same superficial traits were privileged/oppressed makes about as much moral sense as original sin (the idea that we are guilty because some rib lady ate a magic fruit) or North Korea's concept of 3 generations of punishment.

"Not as privileged as Bill Gates" != "not privileged"

The whole concept of "X privilege" is pretty easy to understand and is really just basic common sense (ask yourself if you are more or less privileged than someone born without legs).The only reason I can see as to why you'd take this stance is you feel your claims to victimhood are so great that anyone else's devalue your own somehow.

[cybercoma]

Euler, I'm discussing ideas and you keep trying to make this about you. I'm not going to get sucked into this ridiculous trolling tactic. When you're ready to actually discuss what I'm talking about, let me know.

[Boges]

Accusations of trolling are clearly macroaggressive.

[cybercoma]

So are we supposed to recognize racial differences or not?

Not recognizing that a person's race has an impact on their experiences is racism, so yes. You're supposed to recognize that people of different races are going to have inherently different social experiences.

[Bonam]

The whole concept of "X privilege" is pretty easy to understand and is really just basic common sense (ask yourself if you are more or less privileged than someone born without legs).

Nonsense. Having legs is not a privilege. The person without legs certainly has a disadvantage and society should offer them some support to help overcome that disadvantage, but that does not mean that the person that has legs is privileged. Having normal opportunities and being treated normally are not privileges - they are the way things should be. If some members of society are "underprivileged", then that may perhaps need to be rectified in some way, but no one is privileged just to be a member of a certain race or gender.

Edited October 29, 2015 by Bonam

[cybercoma]

Nonsense. Having legs is not a privilege. The person without legs certainly has a disadvantage and society should offer them some support to help overcome that disadvantage, but that does not mean that the person that has legs is privileged.

It's amazing that you recognize the concept and would rather argue about semantics than the idea. smh.

[Boges]

Not recognizing that a person's race has an impact on their experiences is racism, so yes. You're supposed to recognize that people of different races are going to have inherently different social experiences.

Well that's obvious. There are people that deny that? From what I gather though, identifying racial differences by asking where as person is from is an example of this type of microaggression. How do those two ideas jive? You can recognize different people's racial make-up or culture but you shouldn't treat them any different because of it.

[Bonam]

It's amazing that you recognize the concept and would rather argue about semantics than the idea. smh.

Ramming absurd semantics down society's throat in an effort to alter language so as to alter how people think about things is half the point of the social justice movement, so yes, the semantics are important.

[cybercoma]

So let's just ignore the barriers people face because you don't like the language that's used to discuss it. Let's just sit around and talk about the words people use. Well, have fun.

[-1=e^ipi]

Euler, I'm discussing ideas and you keep trying to make this about you. I'm not going to get sucked into this ridiculous trolling tactic. When you're ready to actually discuss what I'm talking about, let me know.

I don't see denial of your implications. Your tactic of making implications while not admitting to making these implications is tiresome.

[-1=e^ipi]

Not recognizing that a person's race has an impact on their experiences

This is fine. Generalizing people's experiences on the basis of race is what is problematic.

[Bonam]

This is fine. Generalizing people's experiences on the basis of race is what is problematic.

Indeed. Anyone that assumes someone is "privileged" just because of the color of their skin is committing so many fallacies it's not even worth listing them all.

[cybercoma]

Well that's obvious. There are people that deny that? From what I gather though, identifying racial differences by asking where as person is from is an example of this type of microaggression. How do those two ideas jive? You can recognize different people's racial make-up or culture but you shouldn't treat them any different because of it.

There are people who deny that by subscribing to the notion of "colour blindness." Colour blindness denies people of colour their experiences. By saying you don't recognize their race, that implies you don't recognize what impact it has on that person's life.

"Where are you from?" Carries historical baggage from the early development of racial theory. It's racist because it implies that people of colour aren't from here but must be from somewhere else. It reinforces a social order where people of colour are never fully accepted as part of our society. People here want to conflate asking a new colleague who just moved to your city where they're from and asking someone where they're from because they look Asian. These are not the same things at all and it's the latter we're talking about when we say that asking "where are you from" is a microaggression and carries racist baggage.

[cybercoma]

Indeed. Anyone that assumes someone is "privileged" just because of the color of their skin is committing so many fallacies it's not even worth listing them all.

Are you arguing that everyone has equal opportunity, regardless of their race?

[cybercoma]

I don't see denial of your implications. Your tactic of making implications while not admitting to making these implications is tiresome.

I don't need to deny your faulty inferences. Care to discuss the topic at any point? Or are you going to continue discussing me, your gender, your assumptions about my thoughts, and the words that are being used? I bet it's tiresome. You're spinning around in circles with absolutely no point to make.

[Boges]

"Where are you from?" Carries historical baggage from the early development of racial theory. It's racist because it implies that people of colour aren't from here but must be from somewhere else. It reinforces a social order where people of colour are never fully accepted as part of our society. People here want to conflate asking a new colleague who just moved to your city where they're from and asking someone where they're from because they look Asian. These are not the same things at all and it's the latter we're talking about when we say that asking "where are you from" is a microaggression and carries racist baggage.

What if you do it because someone is white but has an accent? I'd be more ready to do that because their accent indicates that they are from somewhere else. Whereas a visual minority can easily have a Canadian accent and their cultural heritage is less important. This can even happen with an American. "What state are you from?"

It's only improper to ask someone's heritage if they aren't white? This is where it appears to be semantics.

And before you tell me that a white person automatically has privilege so it's irrelevant. That's nonsense. I grew up with many people of South Asian heritage that came from wealth. Also white people from certain parts of the US or Eastern Europe may come from an area of great poverty.

Edited October 29, 2015 by Boges

[Bonam]

Are you arguing that everyone has equal opportunity, regardless of their race?

No, I'm arguing that the variations in opportunity between different individuals of any race are larger than the variations in opportunity between the average member of any given race group. Since the individual variations are larger than the average racial variations, one cannot make any judgement of how much opportunity a particular individual has solely from their race (or gender). You can make valid statements about groups as a whole such as "X group makes 15% less income than Y group on average", but you cannot make a valid statement about an individual without knowing more about them. You cannot know if someone is "privileged" or not simply because of their race or gender.

Edited October 29, 2015 by Bonam