Microaggressions

[-1=e^ipi]

the part that matters is where you give away your MO

Which is what? That I use sarcasm and disagree with financially punishing people that think that the most qualified person should get the job?

You know, your comments keep reminding me of the uncyclopedia article on neurotypical syndrome.

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Neurotypical_syndrome

"a delusional belief that they can read other people’s minds."

I think you may suffer from this.

[kimmy]

It isn't? I don't know about that.

Well, that's what I'm trying to grasp here. From what I've gathered reading the Wiki article and the responses here it seems to relate to identity politics-- originally race, then later extended to include gender, sexual orientation, perhaps mental illness and ableism. None of that would seem to include somebody who is extremely unattractive or very overweight or has some visible deformity, or my acquaintance with the big purple birthmark that covers half his face. I don't think the offered explanation of what is a micro-aggression includes any of these circumstances. Yet it is obvious that all of these situations could result in continual reactions (both intentional and unintentional) from other people that would be hurtful and damaging.

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.

The example I offered certainly wasn't a case of ableism. He had no disability of any sort, simply a physical appearance that often caused people to react with noticeable discomfort. Quite similar to the example in the brochure of a woman adjusting her grip on her purse when a black person approaches.

-k

[cybercoma]

I don't see the line you're drawing. You said some kind of "deformity" that causes the person to be othered and discriminated against.

Edited July 1, 2015 by cybercoma

[kimmy]

You keep saying stuff like this...

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.

Which is what? That I use sarcasm and disagree with financially punishing people that think that the most qualified person should get the job?

But there's nothing to suggest this is actually happening, or is even the intent of the policy.

-k

[kimmy]

I don't see the line you're drawing. You said some kind of "deformity."

A birthmark isn't a deformity, nor is it a disability. In his case, it was just something that often made people cringe noticeably when they saw him for the first time. (I think it was what's called a "port wine stain", if you're wondering what I'm talking about.)

I think to try and describe this as "ableism" would be to twist the definition of a disability to mean something it was never intended to.

Or we could say that the startled reactions my acquaintance encounters daily just don't qualify as "microaggression" even though they're surely just as hurtful as the examples offered by the UC brochure, if not more so.

Or we could say that the concept of micro-aggression, as explained in the Wiki article, isn't broad enough and discounts the experience of people who don't fall into a handful of check-box categories.

-k

[Bonam]

I think the better question to ask is what do you expect can be done about it? If someone has a physical feature that makes people cringe when they first see them, that's just something that's gonna happen. It's an inherent, instinctual, reaction people have.

Frankly you can go a lot broader than this. Forget any kind of "deformity" and just consider people that are simply unattractive looking. Is it a microaggression when whenever you approach someone of the opposite gender, they are totally disinterested in you because of your looks? If this is a lifelong condition that you experience which prevents you from having the same kind of social life as most of your peers and basically makes you something of an outcast?

No two people, of any "privilege group" get treated the same way by the society around them. Everyone is treated differently, some as if they have more value due to their appearance/intelligence/wealth/etc, and some as if they have less value for the same reasons. Life just isn't fair.

[-1=e^ipi]

You keep saying stuff like this...

But there's nothing to suggest this is actually happening, or is even the intent of the policy.

They specifically list 'I believe the most qualified person should get the job' as an example of micro-aggression, claim that micro-aggressions lead to a hostile work environment and view creating a hostile work environment as legally actionable. If they meant something else and wanted to avoid confusion, they didn't do a very good job at it.

[cybercoma]

A birthmark isn't a deformity, nor is it a disability. In his case, it was just something that often made people cringe noticeably when they saw him for the first time. (I think it was what's called a "port wine stain", if you're wondering what I'm talking about.)

I think to try and describe this as "ableism" would be to twist the definition of a disability to mean something it was never intended to.l into a handful of check-box categories.

-k

Ok, I see what you're saying. Ableism no, but it certainly puts him in a position to be discriminated against by those without deformities and those who would treat him differently as a result. It's still a microaggression because he's othered by the power group, i.e., those without deformities who don't face the barriers that he does. The challenge in explaining these things comes from intersectionality, also sometimes called cumulative disadvantage theory. He's privileged as a white male, but he's disadvantaged by his deformity. The same thing goes for economics. A heterosexual white male might sound like a power group, but there are some who are from an economically disadvantaged group. If you're poor, you may face microaggressions from those with money who make unthoughtful and insensitive remarks that reinforce an economic social hierarchy. So microaggressions can come from a number of places. It just has to do with recognizing power and privilege and how some people are disadvantaged by things like sex, gender, race, sexual orientation, wealth, disability, or even physical deformities, like you mentioned. Bringing attention to microaggressions is nothing more than a way to ask people to think about the message that they're sending, often unintentionally, by the things they say and the assumptions that they make.

[cybercoma]

I think the better question to ask is what do you expect can be done about it?

I suspect most people would reflect on the message that their words are sending and if they're not complete jerks try to put themselves in other people's shoes when they can, especially if reinforcing social hierarchies and being offensive to people is not your intention. That's it. Thoughtful reflection. There's nothing more to it. This isn't about arresting people or firing people or any of that other hysterical nonsense that people are going on about. If people know that their words are hurtful and they don't care or even enjoy hurting other people, that's their prerogative. I think most of these microaggressions are a revelation to people from power groups because they're things that they wouldn't otherwise think about if they're not pointed out to them.

[-1=e^ipi]

The challenge in explaining these things comes from intersectionality, also sometimes called cumulative disadvantage theory.

Cumulative disadvantage theory and intersectionality as advocated by SJW are flawed because they has the following property:

Let P(X1, X2, X3, ..., XN) be a privilege function of N traits (such as sex, gender, sexual orientation, race, income, etc.). If P(Y1, Y2, ... , YK, A, YK+2, ... , YN) > P(Y1, Y2, ... , YK, B, YK+2, ... , YN) in one part of the country then P(Y1, Y2, ... , YK, A, YK+2, ... , YN) > P(Y1, Y2, ... , YK, B, YK+2, ... , YN) in another part of the country.

Basically, SJWs and others make this untrue assumption that if a society advantages one group of people over another in one location (say men over women) then it must do so everywhere.

Edited July 1, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[-1=e^ipi]

This isn't about arresting people or firing people

Then why tell people that saying 'the most qualified person should get the job' is a micro-aggression?

I think most of these microaggressions are a revelation to people from power groups because they're things that they wouldn't otherwise think about if they're not pointed out to them.

For example, non-asexual people dismissing asexuality.

[cybercoma]

Then why tell people that saying 'the most qualified person should get the job' is a micro-aggression?

It's explained in the chart I posted.

For example, non-asexual people dismissing asexuality.

I didn't dismiss asexuality. I dismissed your self-admitted trolling.

[-1=e^ipi]

I didn't dismiss asexuality. I dismissed your self-admitted trolling.

Denial of micro-aggression is a form of micro-aggression.

Do you deny that I am asexual?

[cybercoma]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yunSRfnsVck

[-1=e^ipi]

I take that as a yes.

[GostHacked]

Good lord. I didn't make the label people of colour. Do you try hard to appear this dense or does it come naturally?

But it's not trolling !!!! Time to play the game cybercoma. Let's see how far we can take it.

[cybercoma]

Here's an example, nearly half of black and latina women in the sciences are mistaken for janitorial staff.

[TimG]

Here's an example, nearly half of black and latina women in the sciences are mistaken for janitorial staff.

So? It would certainly be annoying but when dealing with strangers everyone is judged by their appearance - men included. I would imagine male nurses have a large number of similar incidents to report. The issue with these "microaggressions" is not whether they occur or whether some of the examples are legitimate. The issue is an employer circulating a list that suggested that expressing of opinions on government policies was a "microaggression" and therefore should be avoided. The latter is objectionable. Expressing an opinion on government policy should never be prohibited speech. Edited July 3, 2015 by TimG

[WestCoastRunner]

is it important to you that everyone knows you are Asexual?

[-1=e^ipi]

Here's an example, nearly half of black and latina women in the sciences are mistaken for janitorial staff.

You need to have an ounce of skepticism when it comes to these studies because they often have confirmation bias and sometimes the authors are trying to dogmatically obtain a certain conclusion.

is it important to you that everyone knows you are Asexual?

No.

[cybercoma]

You need to have an ounce of skepticism when it comes to these studies because they often have confirmation bias and sometimes the authors are trying to dogmatically obtain a certain conclusion.

You and Tim are exactly the same in this regard. If a study goes against your dogmatic worldview, it's to be rejected because it's probably biased or the authors have no credibility according to you. Nevermind demonstrating that bias. That would be too much to ask. Besides, is it really that surprising to you that people would confuse minorities for low-wage workers when so many of them are living in poverty?

[TimG]

You and Tim are exactly the same in this regard. If a study goes against your dogmatic worldview

Nonsense, I am just as skeptical of studies that support my preconceptions but I am not likely to point the issues out on this forum. Your problem is you are too naive and refuse to acknowledge the nature of institutional science and how easy it is to manipulate results to support a researchers desired conclusions. When I see results reported I look for how the structure of the study biased the results. It is not hard to do because every study is biased. In many cases studies are so poorly structured that they tell us nothing useful and I dismiss them - even if I like the results. Edited July 3, 2015 by TimG

[-1=e^ipi]

If a study goes against your dogmatic worldview

What is my dogmatic worldview?

it's to be rejected

Where did I say I reject it? I just advocated skepticism.

you that people would confuse minorities for low-wage workers when so many of them are living in poverty?

Apparently I do this now? Since when?

You really want to keep the false dichotomy alive, don't you?

[-1=e^ipi]

The nonsense spreads. Now to the University of Wisconsin.

http://www.uwsp.edu/acadaff/NewFacultyResources/NFSRacialMicroaggressions_Table.pdf

Edited July 8, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[-1=e^ipi]

So let's see. Frozen is now a microaggression as it features predominately white people without representation of people of colour. The horror!

And apparently according to other SJWs, frozen is misogynistic because it treats women as sex objects (http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/24441-bbc-world-service-gets-trolled-by-fake-sjw/).

Edited July 8, 2015 by -1=e^ipi