Black Dog Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 I wonder if anyone else remembers/lived through the campus PC wars of the early '90s. It's the same stuff that's happening now. Didn't cause the downfall of civilization then, don't see why it would today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted June 30, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 Invoking Orwell for social conservative dogma is about as hilariously ironic as arguments get here. Social conservative dogma? Where? Is saying that the most qualified person should get the job social conservatism? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 Just gloss over all the bs in this thread as "the most qualified person should get the job." Sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 I don't see any harm in providing college instructors with information about how common phrases or ideas might be perceived by students from other backgrounds. Ultimately I don't think anybody really *means* to cause offense with phrases like "where are you from?" or "wow, you speak English really well" or "I would never have guessed you're a scientist" and that sort of thing... providing some perspective on how the other person might perceive these comments doesn't hurt anyone. On the other hand, if there was a decree that said "you must not discuss any of these topics" that would be different. But I have not actually seen evidence that these topics have been banned from discussion. If you're a professor where it's a relevant topic, it probably doesn't hurt having some understanding of how some students might perceive your discussion on affirmative action. Perhaps it might help you plan a lecture that's better received. If you're a professor where it's not a relevant topic, then it might again help you to understand how launching into a broadside rant about affirmative action might alienate some of your students. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 I don't see any harm in providing college instructors with information about how common phrases or ideas might be perceived by students from other backgrounds. Just a check-in here, I thought the OP referred to workplace discussions and not classroom ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted June 30, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 (edited) I don't see any harm in providing college instructors with information about how common phrases or ideas might be perceived by students from other backgrounds. That would be fine it that's all it was. If you're a professor where it's a relevant topic, it probably doesn't hurt having some understanding of how some students might perceive your discussion on affirmative action. Perhaps it might help you plan a lecture that's better received. If you're a professor where it's not a relevant topic, then it might again help you to understand how launching into a broadside rant about affirmative action might alienate some of your students. If you are a professor and it is a relevant topic, you don't need to tell the class your opinion on the topic to discuss the topic. If you are a professor and it isn't a relevant topic, then you shouldn't go off topic. In both cases, the professor is being unprofessional. The problem arises if a faculty member or student holds an opinion such as 'the most qualified person should get the job' and the university threatens disciplinary action against those having such opinions. Maybe they write the comment on a blog or on facebook or something. Edited June 30, 2015 by -1=e^ipi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 The problem arises if a faculty member or student holds an opinion such as 'the most qualified person should get the job' and the university threatens disciplinary action against those having such opinions. Maybe they write the comment on a blog or on facebook or something. Let us know when that happens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 "Would I say this to a white person?" would seem to be a good litmus test. Why ? What's so special about a white person of non-colour ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 One of the things that does kind of rub me the wrong way about this is that it seems to elevate ethnicity and gender above other experiences. Like, if you make one of these unintentionally hurtful remarks to a woman or to a minority, that's a "micro aggression" and we're trying to stop that... but the wide variety of hurtful remarks made to other people don't seem to be cause for concern. Somebody who is fat or unattractive or has a visible deformity or some other unusual physical characteristic will experience many intentional and unintentional offenses in the course of a day but it's apparently not a micro-aggression. I had an acquaintance with a very large, somewhat startling birthmark that covered much of his face; for many people their reflexive reaction is to look away or to stare. Imagine going through life when half the people you encounter give visible indication that they're shocked by your appearance. But he's white and male, so it's not micro aggression apparently. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 .... But he's white and male, so it's not micro aggression apparently. Bingo! The true SJW agenda is revealed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 One of the things that does kind of rub me the wrong way about this is that it seems to elevate ethnicity and gender above other experiences. Like, if you make one of these unintentionally hurtful remarks to a woman or to a minority, that's a "micro aggression" and we're trying to stop that... but the wide variety of hurtful remarks made to other people don't seem to be cause for concern. Somebody who is fat or unattractive or has a visible deformity or some other unusual physical characteristic will experience many intentional and unintentional offenses in the course of a day but it's apparently not a micro-aggression. It isn't? I don't know about that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 (edited) Somebody who is fat or unattractive or has a visible deformity or some other unusual physical characteristic will experience many intentional and unintentional offenses in the course of a day but it's apparently not a micro-aggression. -k No. It's a micro-aggression. It's about power and privilege in society. When someone from the power group makes a remark that reinforces their privilege, although usually unintentional, it's microaggression. It reinforces sexist, racist, homophobic, and ableist social stratification. The theory is a lot more complicated than just "I'm offended!" Edited to add: The power group in the example that you gave is the "abled" group, even if the person is from the racial power group and the sex power group. Disability is discriminated against constantly. Consider then that the effects of discrimination are compounded when these groups intersect. A disabled black transgender lesbian woman is going to face a lot more issues than a cisgender heterosexual white male with a deformity. Edited June 30, 2015 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted June 30, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 When someone from the power group makes a remark that reinforces their privilege, although usually unintentional, it's microaggression. Let's see, you are from a power group (SJWs). And you have made comments in this thread that are dismissive of asexuals to an asexual person and refused to correct it. Then you made comments in the other thread that try to impose traditionalist male gender norms on an agendered person. So doesn't that count as micro-aggression? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 I'm not going to pander to you making a mockery of the issue by pretending to be asexual and claiming discrimination. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted June 30, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 I'm not going to pander to you making a mockery of the issue by pretending to be asexual and claiming discrimination. I am asexual. Wow, now you are denying my sexuality. Pretty sure this classifies as micro-aggression. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 I am asexual. Wow, now you are denying my sexuality. Pretty sure this classifies as micro-aggression. Pretty sure it's full on aggression, not just micro. If microaggression demands "judgement" then surely macroaggression requires execution in response? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted June 30, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 (edited) Did I ever mention the time I came out as asexual to my parents? The first one denied that I was asexual, the second one denied the existence of asexuality. Denial of asexuality or dismissing asexuality is the biggest issue asexual people face. Cybercoma, you have done this twice in this thread. Once by using the LGBTIQ acronym instead of LGBTQIA, and the second by denying my sexual orientation. Edited June 30, 2015 by -1=e^ipi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 Cybercoma, you have done this twice in this thread. Once by using the LGBTIQ acronym instead of LGBTQIA, and the second by denying my sexual orientation. Does it really bother you ? People use far worse terms on here but if it's an issue please report, ignore and move on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted June 30, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 Does it really bother you ? People use far worse terms on here but if it's an issue please report, ignore and move on. It's a form of micro-aggression. And unless this site has adopted the UC Berkeley policy on micro-aggressions, I doubt reporting will do anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 Did I ever mention the time I came out as asexual to my parents? The first one denied that I was asexual, the second one denied the existence of asexuality. Denial of asexuality or dismissing asexuality is the biggest issue asexual people face. Cybercoma, you have done this twice in this thread. Once by using the LGBTIQ acronym instead of LGBTQIA, and the second by denying my sexual orientation. Y'know, maybe folks would be more inclined to believe you if you weren't so transparently using this identity to mock the extremes of the ideology you spend all your time railing against. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted June 30, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 (edited) Y'know, maybe folks would be more inclined to believe you if you weren't so transparently using this identity to mock the extremes of the ideology you spend all your time railing against. See this is what I mean when I say micro-aggressions only matter if the victim is an adherent to the SJW policy. UC Berkeley isn't going to be consistent in their application of their policy nor do SJW care about consistency. This is like when Cenk Uygur tells Karen Straughan to make him a sandwich. Edited June 30, 2015 by -1=e^ipi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 See this is what I mean when I say micro-aggressions only matter if the victim is an adherent to the SJW policy. UC Berkeley isn't going to be consistent in their application of their policy nor do SJW care about consistency. This is like when Cenk Uygur tells Karen Straughan to make him a sandwich. Naw this is like when a troll admits to trolling and gets called out for trolling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 Naw this is like when a troll admits to trolling and gets called out for trolling. Now theres a gotcha. Only now we probably see a number of pages of strange formulae to try to squirm out of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted June 30, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 Naw this is like when a troll admits to trolling and gets called out for trolling. Saying that a comment contains sarcasm doesn't mean the entire thing is sarcasm. The part about being deeply offended is sarcasm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 (edited) Saying that a comment contains sarcasm doesn't mean the entire thing is sarcasm. The part about being deeply offended is sarcasm. the part that matters is where you give away your MO Edited June 30, 2015 by Black Dog Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.