**** Elections thread *****

[boost]

I'm not sure how to articulate this well-- but I think what you're talking about are all symptoms of our society coming online, if you will. I guess I mean that both literally and figuratively in that the internet is the mechanism behind this cultural awakening. Overall and in the long term this sudden and rather jarring cultural shift will be a good thing, but right now, in the midst of it all, it seems like utter chaos. The reason I think things are different from previous cultural shifts is the speed at which ideas can be disseminated, discussed, critiqued and refined. Further there isn't a singular concise message conveniently packaged for our consumption. The old media was great at selectively informing, which made everything appear much more black and white, but now, with infinite sources of information, all the nuance is thrown at us. I would guess that this is the major source of the social growing pains that I feel like you're describing: people are still reacting as if they had the clear singular message, but the messages they're getting are fractured, nuanced, and not so easily actionable. For example, I think "microaggression" is describing a real thing which really does impact people's lives, and I think it's interesting to read about, but they also almost certainly aren't something that can be policed by social justice warriors.

[wufwugy]

For example, I think "microaggression" is describing a real thing which really does impact people's lives, and I think it's interesting to read about, but they also almost certainly aren't something that can be policed by social justice warriors.

What are some examples?

As an aside, I loathe the term microaggression. It's pretty ass-pulled and the examples I've seen don't seem to even technically be aggressive in nature.

[boost]

What are some examples?

As an aside, I loathe the term microaggression. It's pretty ass-pulled and the examples I've seen don't seem to even technically be aggressive in nature.

I think the term, as I understand it, is pretty aptly named but possibly ill-applied. Each instance is inconsequential, but when added together the sum of all the microaggressions can have a real impact.

I think the example you offered is a great one. At face value, from a third person view, a white person showing interest in a black person's hair is the same as anyone showing interest in another person's new pair of glasses. But for the black person, they are being bombarded with these inquiries or what may be meant honestly as compliments at a much higher rate and the subject is something inherent to them which identifies them as a stigmatized minority. It would be different if the minority was a visitor in a homogeneous society, but to be treated as a curiosity where you were born certainly has an impact on people. You've got an insider who throughout their entire life is in subtle ways treated as an outsider.

Now, like I said in the previous post, I think it's an interesting subject, and I think it is worth understanding, but I don't think the energy needed to actively self police or to call people out is at all worth avoiding microaggressions. Simply understanding what they are and how they can effect people is probably enough for our culture to slowly shift away from them being a problem.

As to why I think the phrase is aptly named but mostly misused, is that I think the view of the "victim" is the only one being considered, and this creates a victim mentality that is now on high alert to find instances where they are being victimized. In most cases, especially in the case of microaggressions expressed as inquiry, no harm is meant. Being guilty of microaggression does not make anyone a latent racist, it doesn't make them deserving of chastisement, it just makes them a person who is attempting to communicate with another human being while not parsing through every little thing they say to make sure it is up to the latest definition of PC. The problem with this phrase is that it is divisive, and it is so due to the fact that people have a very hard time assuming the perspective of the other. With a holistic vantage, it just looks like a quirk in society, and everyone involved is just a character in a David Simon script.

[wufwugy]

As to why I think the phrase is aptly named but mostly misused...

I can get behind your explanation here.

That said, I worry that the assumption of victimhood runs deeper. By the logic people use for microaggressions, the way SE Asian natives treat white people is an accumulation of the greatest microaggressions there is. Yet there is only an assumption of that to be good, so no white people think of it as negative.

Or let's say you're tall. I wouldn't be surprised if people over 6'5 receive more "microaggressions" than the average person of rare ethnicity (how tall are you, can you reach this, i bet you can dunk, does your head ever hit the top of a car, etc), yet it's just something they deal with like everybody has tiny things they deal with, and we move on.

The concept of microaggressions to me looks quintessential condescension. "Oh that poor Asian fella isn't like us white folk. It doesn't bug us if you think stereotypes about us, but if you engage him in even the smallest of stereotypes, he needs us strong white folk to come in and set the perpetrators straight."

I get that you're not disagreeing with this absurdity I'm pointing out. I just have a hard time seeing how microaggression is a useful, non-condescending, concept in any iteration. I come from a culture (most of white America does) where when somebody says something unique of you (regardless of veracity) that isn't a blatant insult, you say "you're goddamn right". I wonder if this isn't because white culture is the most suppressed of them all (fuckin Victorians, yo), and we delight at the idea of standing out and being recognized. White bitches love them some beauty pageants. Black bitches roll their eyes at that shit because they don't need the outside validation.

[boost]

I can get behind your explanation here.

That said, I worry that the assumption of victimhood runs deeper. By the logic people use for microaggressions, the way SE Asian natives treat white people is an accumulation of the greatest microaggressions there is. Yet there is only an assumption of that to be good, so no white people think of it as negative.

Or let's say you're tall. I wouldn't be surprised if people over 6'5 receive more "microaggressions" than the average person of rare ethnicity (how tall are you, can you reach this, i bet you can dunk, does your head ever hit the top of a car, etc), yet it's just something they deal with like everybody has tiny things they deal with, and we move on.

The concept of microaggressions to me looks quintessential condescension. "Oh that poor Asian fella isn't like us white folk. It doesn't bug us if you think stereotypes about us, but if you engage him in even the smallest of stereotypes, he needs us strong white folk to come in and set the perpetrators straight."

I get that you're not disagreeing with this absurdity I'm pointing out. I just have a hard time seeing how microaggression is a useful, non-condescending, concept in any iteration. I come from a culture (most of white America does) where when somebody says something unique of you (regardless of veracity) that isn't a blatant insult, you say "you're goddamn right". I wonder if this isn't because white culture is the most suppressed of them all (fuckin Victorians, yo), and we delight at the idea of standing out and being recognized. White bitches love them some beauty pageants. Black bitches roll their eyes at that shit because they don't need the outside validation.

1: This is certainly less true of people who live in S.E. Asia and don't plan to return to the west. Even those people have a home to return to in which they wouldn't have to deal with this.

2: Being tall, when taken has a whole, is a positive attribute in our society. Being black is a negative. But even with that being said, I could understand how a very tall person could be sick of being asked if they can dunk, similar to understanding anyone being sick of being treated like an oddity, and so I would do what's reasonable to not participate in making them feel that way. While I understand
the impulse, I certainly don't think telling someone to suck it up is the right way to respond.

3: It's not that the majority can't help the minority, but there certainly is a problem with white saviors co-opting these sorts of things-- however, that doesn't make the issue any less real or relevant. It's the same as bigots tagging along on the right.

4: I mean, you're essentially saying "I grew up in White America, and I don't get what people from outside my culture are so worked up about-- I would respond this way, and I'm not sure why they don't do the same." Well, they don't do the same, because they aren't from the same culture as you, and they process subjective experiences differently because of it.

So you can understand that someone wants to stand out and be unique, but you can't understand that others don't want to constantly be reminded that no matter what they're an outsider?

[wufwugy]

So you can understand that someone wants to stand out and be unique, but you can't understand that others don't want to constantly be reminded that no matter what they're an outsider?

I'm not trying to say that. I think the cult of victimhood is a projection of the white savior onto others.

I'm not sure how much of an outsider various people really are. I know the claim is that there are all sorts of outsiders that are victims of their outsiderness, but that more and more looks to me like the cult of victimhood. I really like the article I linked explaining how America was once a cult of honor, then moved to cult of dignity, and is now knee deep in the cult of victimhood.